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
June 14, 2007 01:26 AM UTC

Rick Wehmhoefer says, "Statute Schmatute!""

  • 23 Comments
  • by: tiltawhirl

I violated a rule that I recently adopted by posting a voluminous rant over in one of the main thread sections (I apologize, Polsters).

So I’m making an entry for that same topic here.  I certainly think it deserves it’s own. Our well-received Kay Sieverding wrote (in her very own thread –thank you Pols), that federal judge’s salaries should be tied to timely responding to motions. 

Humor aside, I think such a proposal is untenable and laughable (they would just rubber-stamp deny motions coming in, like state judge Jane Tidball does –takes no time at all!).  Seems as `though the premise of such a proposal is that judges can’t be trusted to do their jobs.  If that’s the problem we have, then salary incentives aren’t going to solve anything.

How could I know that? I’m so glad you asked!  Our state already has a law on the books, which has NEVER been enforced (Cuervo, if you or anyone else finds where it has, I will eat crow!).  Yes, indeed, Colorado has this little-known statute, 13-5-135

Every motion, issue, or other matter arising in any cause pending or to be brought in any district court of this state, and which is submitted to any such court for judgment or decision thereof, shall be determined by the court within ninety days after the adjournment of court. This section shall not be so construed as to prohibit a decision after the expiration of the time limited, but only as working a forfeiture as provided in section 13-5-136.


The next statute (the one that’s never been enforced) is 13-5-136:

If any judge of any district court, to whom any motion, issue, or other matter, arising in any cause, is submitted for judgment or decision, fails or neglects to decide or give judgment upon the same within the time limited by section 13-5-135, such judge shall not receive from the state treasury any salary for the quarter in which such failure occurred, when the following requirements are satisfied: (a) The party aggrieved by the failure of such judge to rule in a timely manner files a complaint demanding the withholding of the salary of such judge with the commission on judicial discipline established in section 23 (3) of article VI of the state constitution; (b) The commission on judicial discipline, in accordance with rule 4 of the Colorado rules of judicial discipline, investigates the judge`s alleged violation of section 13-5-135; (c) After such investigation the commission on judicial discipline, in accordance with rule 4 of the Colorado rules of judicial discipline, makes a recommendation concerning the allegation to the Colorado supreme court; and (d) If deemed appropriate, the Colorado supreme court issues an order directing the department of the treasury to withhold the judge`s salary. (2) This section shall not apply in case of the sickness or death of a judge.


Aside from the fact that items (a) through (d) is a lot of hoops for anyone to get through, “Dr.” Rick Wehmhoefer of our lovely Commission for the Abolition of Judicial Discipline simply refuses to process any such request[s] under C.R.S. 13-5-136, so a complainant can never even get past hurdle (a).

Of course, don’t take my word for it.  At the bottom of that same page, you’ll find a series of complaints (silly memos) written by someone, who demanded that the judge’s salary be withheld and, who must remain nameless because of our Commission for the Abolition of Judicial Discipline secrecy laws (Colo. Const. Art. VI, Sec. 23(3)(g) & §§ 24-72-401 ~ 402).

So, good ol’ “Dr.” Rick, who’s been on the dole in his job since the eighties (typing up denial letters to complainants day in and day out and travelling around the country to judicial discipline seminars on taxpayer dollars) simply snubs his nose at the will of the General Assebmly.  Statute Schmatute!!!

However, there is good news:  `though Dr. Rick only rarely answers his own office phone these days and, while some may question just what the hell he’s been doing these past 20+ years in his position as the Executive Director of that commission, we understand that he is available for interviews to tell, “tales of stardom and seventies sexiness.” Yes, indeed!  In fact, our very own Dr. Rick was the first male Bell telephone operator!  How `bout that!keywords = Colorado Commission on Judicial Discipline, Richard Wehmhoefer, Richard A. Wehmhoefer, Rick Wehmhoefer

Tweet
Share

Comments

23 thoughts on “Rick Wehmhoefer says, “Statute Schmatute!”””

  1. It appears that Rick Wehmhoefer went from being a “trail blazer” for AT&T to being a “tail blazer” for the Colorado judiciary. Did you know that Rick springs into a lap-dance any time he receives a formal complaint about any of his judicial heinies?

    Some things never change, however, as Rick still has impeccable phone manners and still isn’t “available!”

  2. I looked at your page, but I didn’t click on all the links (there are MANY, as you would acknowlege, I’m sure).  Are all the “complaints” invoking this statute from a single person?  From your post, I deduce that the answer is yes.  So, assuming that is true, I have this to say (I humbly offer….):

    (1) I have never seen this statute before now.  (But I have seen Rule 59(j) applied).  Perhaps this makes me a bad lawyer, fraud, sockpuppet, etc.  But, there it is.

    (2) I have never seen this statute “enforced” before, a conclusion that follows from the first.

    (3) But, I wonder, what do facts 1 and 2 mean?  You assert that Rick what’s-his-face is refusing to apply the statute.  But is that necessarily true?  Here are my points:

    — Rick can enforce this statute only when a complaint is filed

    — the only complaints filed were by that one guy (as far as we know….unless you know differently)

    — Rick may think that one guy is a nutcase

    — that one guy may be a nutcase

    — whether this statute is ever enforced is really beyond the knowledge of both you and me (given your posts here)

    And, the big one, DO YOU REALLY WANT THIS STATUTE TO BE ENFORCED???  You already said that enforcement may lead to the harm of litigants because the statute encourages summary denials of motions, etc.  If that’s true, what’s your beef?

    2. The complaints are not all from the same guy or gal (you’ll have to trust me, I know);
    3. You’re not a “bad lawyer” for not knowing every statute (and you’re in no need of my edification, anyway);
    4. “Dr.” Rick, indeed, refuses to process complaints filed pursuant to subs. (a) of the consequence statute (so judge is ever required to comply with the time limit) –recall that the Commission (chartered by our Colo. Constitution) is given the sole authority to field, process and forward such complaints –they are the gatekeepers –in effect– for the statute;
    5. The Rule 59(j) 60-day time limit only applies to Rule 59 motions (`though I’ve seen it loosely applied to Rule 60 motions and other motions in an unofficial way);
    6. Whether the one guy/gal is a nutcase (disregarding that there were multiple complainants) is irrelevant  –the prima facie facts alleged in the complaint should control whether Wehmhoefer forwards the complaint for an investigation under subs. (a);
    7. A thorough review on WestLaw *and* The Colorado Lawyer online proves out that the statute has never been enforced (unless it’s in an unpublished opinion that neither of us has ready access to); and
    8. Yes, I want the statute enforced.  We already have axiomatic rubber-stamp denial of motions, as I alleged.  The answer, I suppose is, (1) add more judges (which we’re in the midst of); (2) weed out the assholes through a meaningful judicial performance commission reviews; and/or (3) repeal the statute, if no one is going to enforce it and it’s considered somehow against public policy, as you may be implying.

        1. Oh-Wilike will show up here later 2nite or tomorrow to explain to me that I’m wrong or that, whoever wrote the silly memos had “really, really bad arguments.”

          1. …in my experience (which is no more valid than anyone else’s…you SEE how nice I’m being?!!), I have waited much longer for federal court motions to be ruled on than state court motions.  The federal district court can take forever, which is especially odd given its limited jurisdiction.  But, for an important motion, I don’t remember ever waiting more than 3 months in the state district court.  Of course, others may have had different experiences, but I’m just sayin’………..

    9. My original post said, “Someone . . . who shall remain nameless.  Only one person named the statute[s] by name in his or her complaint[s]. Grievances filed by other persons, however, contain allegations of the same conduct  –motions that have been pending for 6 mos, a year, two years, etc. but, they didn’t specify the statute  –hardly anyone knows it’s there.

      Under Rule 97, it’s especially problematic, because a failure to rule on that motion suspends the proceedings indefinitely until a ruling is made thereon.  Judge Tidball recently did this (for 2+ years) in the Harrington case, which effectively put him out of court (the federal court, incidentally, didn’t give a rat’s ass about it and overlooked the issue).  So, in effect, a judge can use dilatoriness to end someone’s access to the court.  He or she then must file under Rule 21 (special writ), which, as you know, is rarely granted.

    10. Forgot to mention: suing under the theory of a “procedural injury,” for the Commission’s refusal to enforce the statute will get one nowhere: 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.”

      So, if Wehmhoefer wants to snub his nose at the General Assembly (which he does), there isn’t a damn thing that any of us can do about it.

            1. Pro se, which is a term that makes me feel like I have syphilis. Seriously, I’m a software engineer and got dragged into legal hell by my ex-wife long ago.  Eventually, I combined the ill-gotten knowledge of law with computer sciences and now I do computer forensics, advise attorneys on e-discovery in Rule 26(f) meet-and-confers & depositions & case consultations; advise courts on e-filing guidelines & technologies; and we do document management software (DMS) & case matter mng’t s/w for law firms.  My partner does computer animations for trial support (crime scene, accident scene & product liability) and other trial support tools (Trial Director, PowerPoint).  In my spare time, for fun and recreation, I write futile appellate briefs. [not].

                1. Don’t think I know him. Is his wife hot?  Yeah, the last time my wife and I went to the ABA TechShow, we were “solicited” by another couple.  These lawyerly-types, you gotta watch out for ’em; they’re pretty ornery.

            2. A lawyer who represents him/herself in a particular case is considered pro se.  Tiltawhirl appears to straddle this time/space continuum, however.  He’s a clever bugger.

          2. You are my sockpuppet now.  (much like Aristotle)

            I am devising a strategy of world domination now.  My marching orders will appear to you when you least expect it.  [insert wicked-witch cackle here]

      2. There aren’t many cases that have actually gone through on the Justice of All Act of 2004, which was signed near the end of 2004, but what the plain words of the Act say is that if you can be recognized as a crime victim, under any title 18 law which includes deprivation of rights under color of law and extortion by a federal government employee, then you are supposed to have input into all phases of the prosecution including a decision not to prosecute.  In other words you would meet with the government prosecutor and discuss the decision to prosecute or not.

        Evidence could also be used from related court proceedings.  The question really is what the judiciary commission can do that is useful.

        If we had a pro se lobby organization with a professional presentation, then our professional staff could just go to the various judiciary committee and U.S. Judiciary Administrative Hearings and ask for a policy when judges don’t rule on motions.  We could collect examples and statistics. 

        1.   “It must have escaped when the Park’s electric fences lost power. Please, nobody type anything. It is sensitive to movement of the keyboard. If you don’t type, it can’t see you.”1

          1Looniversal Studios, All Rights Reserved

  3. I received an anymous tip today from someone, who claims to have left a voice-message for Wehmhoefer, telling him about this forum (and others) and inviting him to not only view the forum discussions (there have been several, in addition to this one) but, also to create an account and contribute.  If the story is true, let’s see if Wehmhoefer does poke in to say hello.

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

57 readers online now

Newsletter

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