President (To Win Colorado) See Full Big Line

(D) Kamala Harris

(R) Donald Trump

80%↑

20%

CO-01 (Denver) See Full Big Line

(D) Diana DeGette*

(R) V. Archuleta

98%

2%

CO-02 (Boulder-ish) See Full Big Line

(D) Joe Neguse*

(R) Marshall Dawson

95%

5%

CO-03 (West & Southern CO) See Full Big Line

(R) Jeff Hurd

(D) Adam Frisch

52%↑

48%

CO-04 (Northeast-ish Colorado) See Full Big Line

(R) Lauren Boebert

(D) Trisha Calvarese

90%

10%

CO-05 (Colorado Springs) See Full Big Line

(R) Jeff Crank

(D) River Gassen

80%

20%

CO-06 (Aurora) See Full Big Line

(D) Jason Crow*

(R) John Fabbricatore

90%

10%

CO-07 (Jefferson County) See Full Big Line

(D) B. Pettersen

(R) Sergei Matveyuk

90%

10%

CO-08 (Northern Colo.) See Full Big Line

(D) Yadira Caraveo

(R) Gabe Evans

50%

50%

State Senate Majority See Full Big Line

DEMOCRATS

REPUBLICANS

80%

20%

State House Majority See Full Big Line

DEMOCRATS

REPUBLICANS

95%

5%

Generic selectors
Exact matches only
Search in title
Search in content
Post Type Selectors
April 23, 2007 03:20 PM UTC

Monday Open Thread

  • 80 Comments
  • by: Colorado Pols

Euphemism: Today will make your next vacation all the sweeter.

Translation: Mondays suck.

Tweet
Share

Comments

80 thoughts on “Monday Open Thread”

    1. Obviously CD-3 and CD-7 lines are shown because even though there’s only one candidate each at the moment, it’s possible that a serious contender will show up.  There will be republican candidates in both districts, and both have potential to become very competitive districts if a campaign goes badly or exceedingly well.  That’s simply not true of CD-1.  Why waste the space?

      1. After Salazar swept up 61% of the vote?
        I know it’s a Republican district voter registration-wise, (I live in it for goodness sakes), but that’s why we have such a Republocrat for a representative. Unless McInnis jumps in for who knows what reason, that seat is as safe for Salazar as CD-1 is for Degette.

        1. …the registration figures plus the fact that Republican held C.D. 3 for a decade make it competitive…..at least theoretically. 
            But the GOP would need a credible candidate, adequate financing (meaning wasting less GOP money by bailing out the candidates in C.D. 4 and C.D. 5), and a favorable national environment in which to run.
            I don’t see any of those three things happening in ’08, so Salazar is safe at least for the near future.

    2. I’d say that CD1 will appear if the GOP decides to run a candidate. Pardon my faulty memory but I don’t believe they ran one in 2006, 2004, and possibly not since sometime in the 90s. And there’s also the extremely remote possibility that DeGette will decide to step down. But in the absence of either development, as cdsmith says, why waste the space?

      1. We didn’t have a CD-1 Line in 2006 either. There is virtually no chance that Diana DeGette will not be re-elected as long as she runs. She hasn’t had a serious challenge in many years.

        1. you show the 2 others (2 others) with just one line on it. In addition, for all pruposes, 5 will be tancredo; he will not leave that seat. This is just a fake run to make ppl pay attention to his only issue.

          I will point out that others come to visit this site. By NOT including CD-1, you do all an injustice, including yourself. I suspect that ppl will think that you are clueless (though you have more clue than others).

          1. If the two others you mean are CD7 and CD3, you KNOW there will be a challenger sooner or later. Both have way too many repubs for there not to be someone. Unless you know of some actual challenger whose name should be there NOW, what’s the problem with it being posted this way?

        1. If Cowboy Ken could have voted for himself.  He couldn’t because he wasn’t registered to vote in the district – he still represented Leadville in the State Senate.

  2. So I’m flipping what passes as a newspaper in this town, and I see a column that is an obit for a Congresswoman from LA.  The name caught my eye, I wondered, I read the story, Yes, it is THAT woman.

    Way back about 1992 California changed their helmet law from anyone 15 1/2 and down to everyone.  I was very active in ABATE, the motorcyclist’s political organization to stop the change.

    Well, we didn’t, but we got even.  The guy who, after many attempts at getting the age restriction removed – that’s all it took – was named Dick.  I can’t recall the last name, but as far as we were concerned, it was appropriate. 

    A black woman decided to run for his seat in the California Assembly, Juanita McDonald.  She was from the Compton-South LA area, Dick’s seat.  Can you just see dozens of white bikers in biker regalia knocking on all those minority doors asking them to vote for this black woman? We stuffed envelopes, did all we could, and gave Dick the door.

    Apparently she didn’t stay long in the Assembly and went to Congress.  Actually, as best as I recall, Dick reclaimed his seat.

    RIP, Juanita.  Thank you!

  3. For the record, you cannot sue an opposing attorney for malpractice.  You can only sue an attorney for malpractice if he/she was retained by you to represent you.

    Further, I have expended over three-thousand hours in legal research and in compiling my 370-page formal detailed complaint.  Said complaint was filed with the Colorado Supreme Court Attorney Regulation Counsel, Colorado Commission on Judicial Discipline, Denver County Court Judicial Review Committee, Colorado Attorney General, and Justice Department to no avail. Since then, I have been proactive in writing editorials and in participating in groups to effect meaningful change. Therefore, I am not one to sit around wining about my misfortune.

    Finally, how would you like to be arrested following a quiet and uncontested final orders divorce hearing in El Paso County District Court without any provocation?  How would you then like to be held in jail for eight-days over Christmas without being allowed to post bond on what autorities say is an outstanding Denver warrant? How would you then like to be transferred to Denver and spend another night in jail while being forced to sit and sleep on a filthy, cold, cell floor? Then, how would you like to be arraigned on your ninth-day of incarceration and find out that no warrant had ever been issued for your arrest and this entire charade had been orchestrated by your opposing attorney who was having an affair with his client (your now ex-wife) and his magistrate friend?  Finally, how would you like to expend thousands of hours compiling evidence to prove all of this just to have all of the aforementioned recipients ignore it?

    For the record, I had never previously nor subsequently been arrested for anything in my entire life.  For a more  detailed account, including names, you can read my legal (7-page) affidavit at the following address:

    http://www.knowyourc…

    Scroll down through the various persons and complaints until you see “February 21st 2006 Affidavit of…” 

    1. I think that BPilgrim, if memory serves, was mentioning malpractice was one of the remedies, rather than relying on an attorney disciplinary agency  –not that a malpractice action is the only remedy for any and all attorney misconduct.  As you note, however, that remedy is not available to non-fiduciaries.  Moreover, a quick review of Colorado attorney disciplinary outcomes (published each month in The Colorado Lawyer) reveal that the vast majority of disciplinary proceedings are either violations towards the fiduciary (abandonment of client, misappropriation of client’s funds, etc.) or failure to pay child support (automated reporting requirement, resuling in mandatory warning & suspension of license).  If you’re a third part or an opposing party, you’re screwed, because all those lofty platitudes of attorneys are “held to a high standards of ethical conduct” is a load of crap enough to make anyone puke.  John Gleason tells the reporters that his office is will prosecute and discipline dishonesty but, as our site proves, he never does unless it’s political (e.g., Arapahoe County D.A. Carol Chambers or someone else caught in the media spotlight).  If you’re a third party aggrieved by an unscrupulous attorneys malconduct, you’d better go hire David Lane or someone good in town and start looking at your options, if any.

      1. …are only as strong as their enforcement.  The Soviet Union during the Stalin era had impressive guarantees of freedom of speech and of the press, but that and a quarter still wouldn’t get you a decent cup of coffee.

    2. I can understand your predicament. But what do you expect when the fox is tending the hen house.  Colorado has one of the worst records when it comes to citizen complaints about any of the professions.  This is specially true when it comes to lawyers, judges, and court appointed professionals like CFI’s and GAL’s.  I have visited your site (knowyour courts) Its about time that someone is bringing light to this corrupt system.

      1. Quite.  Our more level-headed middle-of-the-roaders like Curevo or ParsingReality might read your comment and remind us that we’re all a bunch of obssessive whiners telling only our sides of the story.

    3. I trust our judges to be fair in cases of murder, rape, and robbery … but in cases where they have an interest, that trust goes out the window.  KnowYourCourts has done a good job of meticulously documenting some genuine outrages and systematic problems with our judiciary.  Unfortunately, if you are not the one in the cross-hairs, you tend not to want to see the problem.  Ever heard of Pastor Niemoller?

      A J.A.I.L.-type amendment might make sense, holding judges personally liable in some meaningful way in tort for acts of willful misconduct on the bench.  Even scarcely-civilised countries like Iran see the need for this:

      Whenever an individual suffers moral or material loss as the result of a default or error of the judge with respect to the subject matter of a case or the verdict delivered, or the application of a rule in a particular case, the defaulting judge must stand surety for the reparation of that loss in accordance with the Islamic criteria, if it be a case of default. Otherwise, losses will be compensated for by the State. In all such cases, the repute and good standing of the accused will be restored.
      — Iran Const. Art. 171. 

      1. OPEN QUESTION TO COLORADO LEGISLATORS AND JUDGES

        I invite Colorado legislators and judges to come forward with any solutions that would more directly solve the identified problems with family law than four amendments I am proposing at the end of this letter.

        BACKGROUND

        Among the goals of the Colorado Standing Committee on Family Issues  (SCFI) are to:

        • Amend the statutes to make procedures less adversarial.
        • Implement a system to remove ill-suited or burned-out judges from family court assignments. 
        • The interactions that families have with the courts in any shape or form need to be the absolute least painful experience for them as possible.

        The 2001 Colorado Court Improvement Committee, which Governor Ritter was a former member of, included the following recommendations for cases involving families:

        • Rules and statutes should be amended to provide a non-adversarial alternative .
        • The Branch should establish a Family Rules Committee.
        • The Branch should establish a Family Oversight Committee.

        I also suggest that viewers review the Stadnyck transcripts, found at the KnowYourCOURTS.com in this site.  In this needlessly protracted hearing on contempt for failure to remit to the CFI a lump sum payment, the judge is clearly angry at the father for previous issues, and with no testimony on parenting during the hearing in the closing minutes the judge blind-sides the father with a suspension of his nearly 50/50 parenting time.  That father has not seen his two young daughters in the two years since this hearing, which is to say these children lost their father over CFI fees.

        This Stadnyck transcript and the 79 SCFI recommendations identify the two fundamental problems family law, i.e.:

        1.  Courts are punitive by nature.  This may be effective for crimes and lawsuits but is not appropriate for dealing with families.

        2.  There is no accountability, even for judges who make children the victim.*

        *(Unanswered letter to Chief Justice Mullarkey from a father who had his parenting restricted as punishment for exceeding parenting time:  “If I could prove that Judge XXX harmed my two-year old son because he was pissed off at me, in fact causing my son to develop an avoidant attachment style, could I get the judicial administration to remove him from my case?”)

        Here are my four proposed amendments that would solve the bulk of the problems and make Colorado a national leader in family court reform.

        14-10-xxx CITIZEN FAMILY COURT REVIEW BOARD (CFCRB)

        To make the system less autocratic, reduce the cost to parents, and reduce the case load on judges overwhelmed by family court dockets, in each judicial district a five member CFCRB (like a jury) will be appointed to review and make orders in post-dissolution parenting time disputes.  Upon motion of either parent a case will be submitted to the CFCRB.  The CFRCB will review cases submitted, conduct hearings, and issue orders regarding parenting time and responsibility.  Members of the CFCRB may conduct interviews and observations with the parents and children.  CFCRB members will be trained in the statutes pertaining to the best interest of the child.  Judges will not preside at CFCRB hearings, but perhaps a staff member in an administrative support role.  At CFCRB hearings the parents must represent themselves.

        14-10-xxx FAMILY COURT RECUSAL BOARD (FCRB)

        To increase checks and balances and peer review, a state or judicial district Family Court Recusal Board will be formed with the goal to promptly appoint a new judge and set a new hearing when a child is at risk from a judge displaying anger, bias, or unfairness in parenting disputes.  Parents may directly motion the FCRB for a new judge.  Recusals made by the FCRB will be made public record.

        CJD 04-08: TIME LIMIT FOR CHILD FAMILY INVESTIGATOR (CFI) ANALYSIS

        CFI analysis will be completed in a maximum of 14 billable hours and concentrate on the most direct and reliable measures to assess parenting issues, with the bulk of the focus on itemizing the parenting issues correlated to the 13 criteria listed in the best interest of the child statute 14-10-124 .

        COMMENT

        Putting a time limit on the length of CFI analysis recognizes the inherently speculative nature of determining the best long term parenting plan by any third party, the potential abuse of opportunity by professionals given this assignment, and the public policy objective to mitigate the harm to parents and children in the already painful process of divorce.  Itemizing the parenting issues correlated to the 13 criteria listed in the best interest of the child statute 14-10-124 insures that the legislative intent is not lost in the process, and is also an effective and concise way to present the relevant parenting issues to the court.

        CJD 04-08: WEBSITE LINK FOR REVIEW OF CFI RECOMMENDATIONS AND
        TESTIMONY

        Within the state judicial website a link will be created where CFI parenting time recommendations will be posted by the court, and parties to the action can post CFI testimony, names removed to accomodate the confidentiallity clause of 14-10-126(2).

        COMMENT
        It is valuable for interested parties to be able to review the performance of CFI’s in previous cases. Creating a web-link where final parenting time recommendations of the CFI and select portions of transcripts are posted allows judges, lawyers, and parents to make an educated choice for choosing a CFI. The court posting of parenting time recommendations can help identify CFI gender bias or neutrality.  The party-to-the-action choice of concise portions of transcripts helps establish credibility of testimony. Likewise making CFI performance public record (names of litigants removed obviously) would increase the necessary accountability in a position of such a pivotal control over the welfare of children.

        1. Whitter, I know I was an overly prolific writer but what is this?  This belongs as a New Release on a Web site, not in a post-a-comment forum!  Put it up on a free Web site, give us a few-sentence summary and a URL to it?  Better yet, start an inexpensive BLOG (e.g., TypePad), post it there, give us the URL and accept public comments at your BLOG on it.

        2. Simple cases can usually be completed in 14 hours.  When a CFI has to investigate mental health issues, drug/alcohol issues, medical records, social services records, police records-sometimes in numerous jurisdictions, throw in out of town home visits, and forget about relocation issues. There is a large list of items to be covered there. You can bet that the CFI will be accused of not doing his or her job if all the bases in these matters haven’t been covered, and in complicated cases involving multiple issues, 14 hours won’t cut it.

          1. maybe a cost limit like the $1400 larimer county flat fee is the answer then.  if the cfi runs into expanding issues that require more time maybe they could petition for an exception. 

            from my experience there needs to be some cost accountability that focuses the investigation on the most reliable criteria and protects parents from abuse of opportunity.

            my cfi cost $5000 and used such reliable measures to determine parenting as an inkblot test.  she was eventually contradicted by three other experts and even the judge suggested the appointment of a new one, but not before her recommendations cost me over $12,000 and harmed my 2yr-old son.

          2. dear lauren bacall, if you get a chance check out my cfi transcript post, and give your comments,

            e.g. does the cfi seem credible? is the judge displaying the expected patience and analysis or protecting the cfi from scrutiny?

    4. So, Condor/tiltawhirl/riogrande/theduke, I’m just curious here.  Are you under the impression that you’re the first person to realize that the anonymity of the Internet lets you register several account names on a blog?  Do you think that other people aren’t aware this is possible?  Do you believe that your anything-but-subtle deception will trick anyone?  Do you not realize that anyone who wants to can check posting history and easily observe that all of your accounts popped up at the same time, and that none of them have ever posted except to advertise your web site?

      I’m very interested in your take on these questions.  I’m considerably less interested in your story of legal system maliciousness, since you are obviously a chronic liar anyway.

      1. Well, I think I’ll take that one on.  Yes, as one of the administrators for a Web site and a computer forensics examiner, I’m well aware about verifying server logs for IP addresses (see the Friday Open thread, which was hijacked to attack me for looking at our own server log to corroborate a claim that another poster had made).  I also know that, if I were so pathetic as to log on as multiple identities, I would use Anonymizer.exe and/or a combination of any one of several free IP address cloakers and anonymizer Web sites to log in with different ID’s and corresponding IP addresses.  And maybe, if I was so pathetic to do that, I might work real hard at trying to disguise my writing style so that each ID “appeared” different.  And so, if I’m quite that pathetic, then I suppose that every document (of the hundreds) now on KnowYourCOURTS.com were documents that I fabricated in Photoshop.  By the way, although I was born after 1970, I was also the other shooter on the Grassy Knoll.

        1.   Did it ever occur to you that, when I first posted back on April 4th or 6th or whenever, and started getting beaten up on, that I emailed some of the other folks and said, “Hey, log onto ColoradoPols, create a free account (it only takes two minutes) and put in a good word for what we’re trying to do.”?
            Of course not.  It’s much easier to assume something far more sinister.

      3. Oops, I guess I forgot to delete the cookie and log back in as one of my other alleged user IDs! 
          I was just going to point out, as an afterthought, how you said, “I’m very interested in your take on these questions [hereinabove].  I’m considerably less interested in your story of legal system maliciousness.”  Sounds an awful lot like ParsingReality’s comment a couple of days ago: “I doubt if most Polsters care a whole lot about [Tilter’s] issues. . .Waaaaaay down the list of political ills to correct. Certainly the way he has posted has turned a lot of people off.  He has generated more commentary on our observations of his obsession that on the issue at hand.”  So is cdsmith and ParsingReality one and the same?
          No, what I find more interesting is the fact that, whenever this subject is raised, there’s a tremendous effort to redirect the debate into an ad hominem attack on the poster  –whether he’s obssessed; whether’s he’s lying; whether he’s posting under multiple identities; whether’s taken enough time to enjoy a glass of wine and the Colorado sunshine, whatever.
          Aside from the fact that these issues are boring for anyone not having to deal with the courts (and those that have would sooner forget the experience) and, which I’ll admit that they’re not terriby interesting, why is there such an aversion to suppress debate on the subject of the judiciary, attorneys, legal ethics, corrections, and so forth? 
          I feel like I’m on a grade-schhol playground. I agree with LaurenBacall’s post from yesterday, “There is a wealth of information to be gleaned from posters from all walks of life.  I learn a lot and I like that.  In order to get to the interesting debate and wealth of information, I have to wade through a continual stream of snide comments, harsh criticism, broad brush judgement, and outright ignorant bile spewed on a daily basis directed at . . . individual posters.  I can barely stomach it sometimes, so I do my best to ignore the worst of it and continue to dialogue when things interest me.  I agree with Dobby and Gecko on some issues, and disagree on others, but if you think I’m going to join your dog pile and beat up on them every time they post something I don’t agree with, think again.  You and others are doing a mighty fine job of that all on your own. You criticize me for not taking them to task, but seemingly give a pass to yourself and others for a ridiculous amount of harshness and intolerance. You want less team spirit? Stop the personal attacks and get back to debating ideas and issues.”

        1. So:

          1. You want us to care about this problem.
          2. The only evidence for this problem is your statements, and the web site that you maintain.
          3. Whether you are or not, you sound a lot like a lunatic.

          And you don’t think #3 is relevant?  I do.

          1. (1) perhaps
              (2) yes, the only “evidence” I have is my statements and the Web site, which is a posting of hundreds of court documents, affidavits, legal memoranda, certified court transcripts.  Is there any other kind of evidence?
              (3)  I sound like a lunatic?  Like I wrote above, when you have nothing to contribute to the debate (and you have *nothing*), you resort to ad hominem attacks, just like a child at a schoolyard playground.

              1. Show me my bellyaching about how I’m a poor victim.  Fact is, fool, I don’t even talk about me or my case until some other posters practically pried it out of me, demanding that I explain my relationship to the Web site because of its purportedly high relevant value.  The fact is, I don’t want to talk about me; I want to talk about the issues.  But you can’t talk about these issues, because you have nothing to contribute. So, like small handful of other schoolyard bullies, you keep trying to make this about me.  It’s not about me!  I’m not a victim!  Nice try.

                2. the minority who have been attacking you get you down.  There are those who have no interest in a civil argument here and if they disagree, they attack the poster, not his position.  It can be annoying and frustrating.  But the courts are definitely a fair subject to be talked about on this site and knowledgable people are welcome reading, even if you don’t agree with their views most of the time.

                  And on that note, CRIPES!  Sir Robin and I agree on this!
                  Whodathunkit?

          2. . . . hundreds of documents posted by scores of people (not one person).  Whatever issue you have with me (since it’s more conveninient to attack me, rather than discuss the issue), you with with all of them, as well.

        2. Hang in there tilt, we actually do have some great discussions in here, in between barbs.

          You might enjoy this little scandal in the Rocky Mountain News:

          A Douglas County judge and a female prosecutor admitted having sex in his chambers, and on more than one occasion he slipped into the women’s showers at the courthouse so they could be together.

          Those are some of the details included in a complaint filed with the Attorney Regulation Council, which is looking into the allegations that could result in their disbarment.

          http://www.rockymoun…

      4. cdsmith: So, Condor/tiltawhirl/riogrande/theduke, I’m just curious here.  Are you under the impression that you’re the first person to realize that the anonymity of the Internet lets you register several account names on a blog?  Do you think that other people aren’t aware this is possible?  Do you believe that your anything-but-subtle deception will trick anyone?  Do you not realize that anyone who wants to can check posting history and easily observe that all of your accounts popped up at the same time, and that none of them have ever posted except to advertise your web site?

        I’m very interested in your take on these questions.  I’m considerably less interested in your story of legal system maliciousness, since you are obviously a chronic liar anyway.
        ========================================================
        Sorry, Chauncey, but we’re not the same person.  I’m certain the website admin could prove this out, but if s/he did, you would be accusing him/her of being “obsessed.”

        For all we know, you are a corrupt judge, who isn’t getting to his caseload because you’re screwing around on the ‘Net.  My surmise is that you have a dog in this hunt, and Tilt has already proven “Cuervo” to be a liar.

        There isn’t an attorney in this state with the cojones to take on our corrupt judicial establishment.  Indeed, the Bar is a living refutation of evolution, as it proves that one can be sentient without benefit of a spine.  Is there any other fair way to describe the disgusting legion of craven invertebrates euphemistically called “lawyers” who, as a species, have abandoned principled advocacy in favor of shameful servitude?  Professor Carl Bogus wryly observes:

        Some people are more vulnerable to a lack of criticism than others, and among the most vulnerable are judges.  … Saying that lawyers treat the judges with deference fails to capture the interaction; it is more accurate to say that lawyers bow and scrape.  Some lawyers have elevated fawning to an art form, pulling it off with subtle elegance.  But few tell a judge she is wrong.

        Carl T. Bogus, “Culture of Quiescence,” 9 Roger Williams U.L. Rev. 351, 352 (2004).

        I’m mindful of Hapless Caplis’ public refusal to criticize any judge that he might appear before.  Talk about servility on stilts!

        I’ve posted here under another name, but I lost the password and can’t remember when I posted here last.  Something about Tancredo (I’ve been a persistent critic of “Three-Term-Tom”) and John Andrews’ Amendment 40, iirc.  I might have posted regarding Holtzman v. Beauprez.  Whether you choose to believe me is beside the point, as I doubt that you will be giving up your anonymity.

        1.   Actually, no, the Web site admin couldn’t prove that out, because, as I explained above, one so obsessed could simply use different anonymizer sites to change IPs and delete the cookie before each different log-in.  And, like I also said, such a person must truly have spent 3,000+ hours (according to Condor) fabricating documents in PhotoShop to post on KnowYourCOURTS.com about people, who really don’t exist and ficticious case numbers.

      5. The Standing Committee on Family Issues has a list of 79 improvement areas for Colorado family courts.  A group of the most influential professionals don’t come up with a list that long just because “some people are belly-aching about their own problems”. 

        One telling item on the SCFI list is:  “Implement a system to remove ill-suited or burned-out judges from family court assignments.”

        Also read the Stadnyck transcript before Hon. Barnhill at knowyourcourts.com where a father looses his daughters over CFI fees.

    5. 1. A 370-page document isn’t a “complaint.” It’s a “book.” (You could call it “Year of the Condor.”) Condense it to 20 pages and maybe someone will pay more attention.

      2. There are lots and lots of hungry lawyers out there who will take a GOOD, WINNABLE case against government entities and their employees who’ve falsely imprisoned citizens. They can sue on civil rights/constitutional theories. Rather than whining in a website, etc. and just creating fodder for the defense lawyers to eventually use against you, why don’t you contact some of these plaintiff’s lawyers for a FREE CONSULTATION? You can call the Colorado Bar Association for help.

      3. And if your response is that “nobody will take my case” – well, that suggests there might be other facts of which we’re not aware. (How long ago was this? Has the statute of limitations expired? It must have been at least a year and a half ago if you’ve spent 3,000 hours compiling information – even if you’ve spent every waking moment.)

      4. To answer your questions, I would not like to have any of the things done to me that you claim were done to you. Except the floors. I have a thing for sleeping on cold, filthy floors.

      2.   TancredoWatch, I’ve never met Condor in person, but I’ve talked with him over the phone over the past two years in helping to put that Web site together.  I can’t vouch for every detail and allegation, but I can tell you that he seems like a real sweetheart.  However, I agree with you that no one has the time (or inclination) to read a life-story book  –I have that same problem –too prolific in my writing – “Je n’ai fait cette lettre – ci plus longue que parce que je n’ai pas eu le loisir de la faire plus courte” (“I have made this letter longer than usual, only because I have not had time to make it shorter”).
          Problem with his case (and I’m not giving legal advice) is (1) statute of limitations; (2) absolute immunity (can’t sue a judge, even for malicious conduct); (3) Rooker-Feldman doctrine (can’t sue in federal court for alleged injuries resulting from state court judgments, even if asserted as civil rights claims; (4) Younger abstention doctrine (they’ll claim that, because a divorce court never loses jurisdiction over the parties and the cause, there’s an ongoing case that the federal court cannot intervene in; (5) preclusion doctrines (res judicata or collateral estoppel –they’ll say he had a “fair” opportunity to litigate these issues, previously; (6) waiver by reason of plea bargain; (7) years too late for any kind of appeal; and (8) statute of limitations.
          So, if any of what he’s said is true and really did happen to him, then: (A) I doubt any lawyer would “take his case” (unless I’m missing something); and (B) probably all he has left to do is either ask the court to modify his parenting time notwithstanding everything that happened or go tell his story on a Web site to raise awareness. 
          Remember, in that case, the allegations were that the divorce attorney, Hal Lohse (Herman A. Lohse) was having “relations” with his client (the complainant’s ex-wife), who he married a few months after the divorce decree but, then apparently continued to draft legal pleadings for her, which she signed.  Because this is a most basic ethics violation, the OARC had a duty to at least investigate it. They didn’t.  They told him to screw off.  The fact is, they never investigate complaints unless either: (a) the complainant is the client; (b) the complainant is another attorney or judge; or (c) it is a high-profile media case (like the recent Carol Chambers fiasco). 
          If that’s how it’s going to be in Colorado, that’s fine with me.  Then repeal Rule 251.9 and the other disciplinary rules and let’s have John Gleason, head of the OARC, stop running around telling the media what an excellent job his office does and that they take complaints of dishonesty very seriously and that they hold attorneys to a high standard of ethics.  I don’t like being lied to and, I assume, neither do you!

      3. BTW, in addition to his OARC complaint, one of his cases (which refer to the only other case I’m aware of) is here:  http://www.knowyourc….  It’s important to point out that this Web site that hosts these cases and documents isn’t intended to be about his case or my case or Joe Bob’s case.  These cases are examples to substantiate our claims. Otherwise, when we try to call attention to the legal ethics situation in this state, folks (like cdSmith, et al.) above accuse of having no evidence.  There’s the evidence.  It may be boring to look at but, it’s evidence, nonetheless.

      4. TW: There are lots and lots of hungry lawyers out there who will take a GOOD, WINNABLE case against government entities and their employees who’ve falsely imprisoned citizens. They can sue on civil rights/constitutional theories. Rather than whining in a website, etc. and just creating fodder for the defense lawyers to eventually use against you, why don’t you contact some of these plaintiff’s lawyers for a FREE CONSULTATION?
        ==========================================================
        Most capable lawyers (I was represented by David Lane when I could still afford him, and I had access to some of the best trial lawyers in the region) will tell you that the winnable cases are few and far between, because there is a massive disconnect between the official published law on the books and what really happens in our courtrooms on a daily basis. [Not waiving privilege here.]  Rooker-Feldman abuse (of the kind alluded to in Lance) is merely the tip of the iceberg.  Many file in propria persona out of necessity because the lawyers know they’ll never get paid — as judges don’t like it when people sue judges.  The merits are often beside the point.

        Colorado judges commit felonies on an industrial scale, and anyone who is even paying casual attention knows it.

  4. Having filed my formal complaint with every appropriate government agency, website, media, and legal reform group that I can find, I have not made any attempt to hide my name or the facts of my case.  My earlier thread today which links the viewer directly to my legal affidavit on knowyourcourts.com, filed in Denver Federal Court last year, makes it easy for everyone willing to expend the energy to click on a link to discover my identity.

    The only reason that I use the handle “Condor” on this website is that you, and those like you, do also.  How about sending us a link so that all of the readers can learn your identity or do you prefer to continue to spew your venom in anonimity like the coward that you obviously are?

  5. You are correct and I’m not so vane as to believe that anyone would want to tred through 370-pages of evidence on my behalf.  My complaint initiated with a cover letter and thirteen-page detailed chronology descibing the important events of my divorce and emphasized the days immediately preceding my arrest, my nine-days of incarceration, and a few subsequent but important dates.

    Each daily entry made reference to specific, labeled and categorized, documentary evidence exhibits (approximately 350 pages)which the reader could choose to examine individually or not depending upon the importance assigned by said reader. It was never intended that anyone read the entire 370-pages.  In my estimation, a reader could examine approximately 30-pages and ascertain enough truth to warrant criminal and ethics investigations.

      1. You have nothing to contribute to the discussion of legal ethics reform in Colorado  –no quantifiable facts; no personal experiences; no studies; no evidence; no informed opinions; nothing.  So, it’s easier to attack the writer, call  him obsessed, a loon, whatever, so now the discussion is focused on his lunacy, rather than the issue raised.  Grow up!

        1. You can jabber on all you want, but I can tell you right off this is not the best venue to try to get anything changed when it comes to legal ethics reform. This website is about politics, not policy… and while many debate policy here, it is mostly in the context of politics. So keep on posting by all means, but you are wasting your time and energy.

          1. You know, I don’t want to “fight” with every poster that doesn’t like what I have to say but, I’ll jabber again what I jabbered a couple of days ago.  Bill Ritter (frequently discussed on this site) was the former Denver D.A.  Ken Salazar (also frequently mentioned on this site) was the former A.G.  John Suthers (occasionally mentioned on this site) was recently reputed to be eying some political office.  My point simply is that the majority of our politicians came from the legal community, which is administered by various aspects of the legal ethics regulatory system.  If that system is crooked, then the products of it (our politicians) are likely to be crooked, as well.  In fact, if some folks graduated from the legal community and looked the other way in the face of corruption or injustice, why would you think you could rely on them to represent your interests in political office with any more integrity?
              I don’t think it’s a waste of time, frankly.  The hits to the Web site increased by at least 30% today, including some more from judicial.state.co.us.  I don’t want to make any enemies in any forum (and I do feel badly that it appears I now have some here) but I’m glad we have people logging in and taking notice of what we’ve put together.  All I’m trying to do is spread awareness.  It’s unfortunate that I’m meeting such opposition.

            1. The hits to the Web site increased by at least 30% today

              I’m glad we have people logging in and taking notice of what we’ve put together.

                …you use too many words…

              2. Maybe I used too many words, too. 

                I’ve not risen to your bait after “signing off” from your rants (see “You use too many words”)but may I offer an observation from my volunteer work today?  I have never denigrated your goal, I agreed that it sounds like you got screwed.  It is your obsessive approach that creates walls with those who might well sympathize, otherwise. 

                Anyway, here is what happened at “work” today volunteering for a state rep.

                First item in the mail was a letter that without overview or goal, started ranting about her rights being denied while she was in prison. (Not her fault, of course.) While prisons have a long history of denying “odd” religious requirements, her demands for meditation times, unlimited access to a particular room, a meditation mat, etc for her Buddhism I thought over the top.  She then enclosed a copy of a letter to Barak Obama asking for his help.  She also claimed that she is highly respected, professional woman – aromatherapist. The question here isn’t if it wasn’t reasonable to expect different outcomes for her issues, but her approach and what one can read between the lines.

                Then I got a phone call from a woman that I will charitably call a “nut.” Believe me, I get similar calls almost every time I am in the office.  People who know it all, know their rights (they think), everyone is against them (paranoia), everyone’s on the take, demanding action that a rep can’t do, etc.  It turns out that my rep has spent a lot of time trying to help her, being subjected to abuse even while trying to help, just to be a good human being.  And then I check, and she doesn’t even vote.

                Tilter and Condor, I’m not saying that you are like these two.  But you do have some relationship.  You two, at least, appear to be intelligent and understand how the system works, or doesn’t.  But public officials get the kind of stuff I mention above all of the time.  Along you guys come, and who do they equate you with?  The real nut cases, sadly.  A 370 page tome is not a “brief.” 

                I really, really hope that you get some things changed, if indeed they are as you claim.  I hope the first woman above gets some things changed, but I doubt if she will. The question isn’t the substance of your claims, it is the method of attack.  As already mentioned, this forum just isn’t the best place for discussing your passions. We probably would find some of this interesting, but man, long, long, rants with excruciating detail that most of us cannot relate to. 

                See, I used too many words…..

                1. You and I got off on the wrong foot, I admit.  After all the mayhem, I emailed everybody in our “group” and said essentially, “I’m getting my ass kicked at this, which isn’t doing any good for our cause. I’m no good at being the spokesman.  I think I should stick to what I’m good at, which is gathering evidence, legal research and brief writing (the latter is arguable).  Someone else needs to be the frontman.”  I believe that.

                  1. You are obviously intelligent and I need not mention again your passion. 

                    I don’t have all the answers, but being an overactive member of the Pols community, I have a fair handle on what flies around here. 

                    I think you will do fine as the “leader.”  You’ve already recognized a need for a different approach.  I’m sure you can do that, too.

                    Keep us informed of this important topic. 

    2. On the one hand, if Condor submitted a three-page summation, he would be dismissed as presenting an argument without any substance.  On the other, if he submits a 370-page tome that owes its length primarily to painstaking documentation, he is dismissed by the denizens as obsessed or worse.

      I have known David Lane to submit a 100-page brief in federal court in a death penalty appeal.  Was he too verbose?  Too prolix?  The length of a document ought to be a function of what the writer is attempting to communicate, and tailored to the audience.

      Tancredo once told me that if you can’t put it on a bumper sticker, you probably shouldn’t bother.  That might be the fairest assessment of the level of ADD in this forum…. 

      As this forum appears to be an extension of USENET, and some of the posters (e.g., Cuervo) are generating more heat than light (i.o.w., firing of a relentless salvo of unnecessary ad hom attacks), you probably won’t get past bumper-sticker arguments.  Consider it a “substance-free zone,” Condor … just like modern-day politics in general.

        1. Relax.  Go look at that Web site. It’s a tax protester *debunking* information clearing house. If you’re wanting a
          “tax protester” site, sorry, I’m in short supply of those.  Maybe go look up Rick Stanley’s page?

    2. ..and “sound logic and reasoning” rather oxymoronic?

      They’ve never prevailed in any court. Uh oh, this is starting to sound familiar.

      It is my presumption that with your handle that you are a government employee.  Is that correct?  And you want to pay less taxes, the very vehicle that writes your paycheck?

      Am I barking up the wrong tree?  What don’t I know that I need to to make some sense here?

      1.   In my line of work, I read or scan over scores of appellate opinions from around the country for other blawgs or during routine legal research but, I’ve had no occasion to look up tax law. However, every now and then I’ll stumble across a tax protester lawsuit and scan over it out of curiosity.  All of them collect cases and decree as frivolous the various arguments interposed for non-liability because some Amendment to the Constitution wasn’t ratified or whatever.
          Notwithstanding the fact that many appellate opinions are specious (pls. trust me on this  –there’s many law review articles about it but I’ll spare you), it seems foolish for anyone to advance one of these arguments, when the outcome is certain.

        1. (!7th, I think) but I remember reading something in Flipside magazine (a punk/alternative ‘zine, oddly enough) about 15 years ago a claim that the income tax amendment wasn’t truly ratified, something like it came one state short but that they called it 2/3 of the 48 then in union and put it in the Constitution. Anyway, it’s supposed to be the whole justification that income tax is illegal.

          The same author also claimed that there was a technical way people were tricked into giving legal consent to having their income taxed – I think it comes when you fill out your first W-4 (or is it W2? I always get them mixed up) when you’re first employed you start paying taxes and that makes you legally obligated to pay them the rest of your life. The author said there was a way to file an affidavit or some such thing that could get you out of that obligation and save you from ever paying taxes again.

          I was intrigued but decided not to test out the theory. After all the militia groups in the 90s started getting in trouble and having shootouts with the FBI I figured that I made the right decision.

        2. Tilter, thanks for your brief, informative response above!  You’re catching on! Not that not every response needs brevity, Lord knows Dr. Dobby and Yev can crank out the words!

          What’s the diff?  I’ve thought about it, and my conclusion isn’t the strongest: Usually, every sentence wants to make you read the next.  They don’t bog into some excruciating detail or repetition.  I don’t know if that’s it, but it’s a start.

      2. Yeah.  I thought a tax protester web site might be refreshingly normal after the many-paged rant about the Colorado courts and lawyers, of which I am one (lawyer, not court).  I am a government employee and I never begrudge a nickel I pay in taxes for that very reason.  I thought my post was plainly ironic, but apparently I missed.  Sorry!

        1. Sorry.

          My landlord,owner of 20 properties and retired from “the city” where his wife still works, “hates taxes.”  Nice guy, dislikes Bush, but doesn’t get the connection between his income and taxes!

        2. http://www.msnbc.msn…
            “Ed and Elaine Brown insist tax laws do not exist and have holed up in their hilltop home in Plainfield, which has a watchtower, concrete walls and the ability to run on wind and solar power. Ed Brown, 64, said he has stockpiled food and supplies.”

          1. I guess that the handcuffs that will eventually be around their wrists will be a fiction, too!

            Do other countries have these tax crackpots?

Leave a Comment

Recent Comments


Posts about

Donald Trump
SEE MORE

Posts about

Rep. Lauren Boebert
SEE MORE

Posts about

Rep. Yadira Caraveo
SEE MORE

Posts about

Colorado House
SEE MORE

Posts about

Colorado Senate
SEE MORE

46 readers online now

Newsletter

Subscribe to our monthly newsletter to stay in the loop with regular updates!