Judge Peter Michaelson To Story To Evaluation

The Colorado Judiciary's "Culture of Silence" The judicial department's culture of silence was well documented in the RCT and ILG reports. The following sections give specific examples of how people have been kept quiet. NDA "Toxic Environment" Silencing the Watchdogs CCASA Victim Senator Pete Lee Investigation of "Memo" Allegations Retaliation Against Staff Masias Affair Whistleblowers

Recent Developments New (October 27, 2025) The American Bar Association Journal published a story related to allegations of Colorado judicial corruption. It leads off with this headline: "Former judicial ethics chief files suit claiming Colorado justices, other officials conspired to hide misconduct." This is one of the latest developments as the Masias Contract Scandal continues to reverberate in Colorado judicial circles. Read the article here: Former judicial ethics chief files suit . . . New (October 2025) New rules for judicial discipline proceedings are being adopted. Link to our section on the The rulemaking process is underway. Access the recent rules and public comments, including extensive comments submitted by former executive director of Colorado Commission on Judicial Discipline. Rulemaking Links to Public Comments Recent Addition (August 20, 2024) Access the detailed and complete Request for Evaluation filed relating to the Masias Contract Scandal Link to Request for Evaluation re: Masias Contract Scandal New (July 24, 2025) FEEDBACK from Christopher Gregory System skewed to benefit disciplined judges FEEDBACK: System skewed to benefit disciplined judges New (June 27, 2025) Letter to Editor: Judicial reforms are in place 2025-06-27 Letter re Judicial reforms are in place.pdf New (June 15, 2025) Opinion by former executive director of Colorado Commission for Judicial Discipline, Christopher Gregory. Perspective - Above the Law New (May 7, 2025) Senate rejects Colorado judicial discipline appointee while approving another Read Story at Colorado Politics New (May 6, 2025) Colorado Senate committee balks at governor's judicial discipline nominations. Read story here New (May 1, 2025) OPINION: Colorado's highest court has lost credibility. A comprehensive, behind-the-scenes, insider look at Colorado judicial politics at the highest level. Continue reading at this link . . .

Judge Ross Buchanan "Even when a judge breaks the rules, we can't know about it -- even though they supposedly work for us in an open government." Story "The panel inadvertently revealed [that Judge Buchanan] last year was the subject of a private reprimand" Story More Commentary Story Recommended for retention by voters To Evaluation

Judge Grant Sullivan Judge Sullivan was an attorney representing the Judicial Department in the Masias contract affairs. After his involvement in the Masias contract affair, he was placed on the Colorado Court of Appeals. Go To Story Story Story "This ... is an epic clash ... a critical showdown of Constitutional authority." Story Story To Story

Financial Disclosures Colorado judges, like other public office holders, are required to make annual public disclosures about their financial interests. This is to allow accountability on conflicts of interest. Failing to file these disclosures is a crime. In 2023, reporters revealed that large numbers of judges, maybe over 100, were not filing the required disclosures. The discipline commission started investigations of these reports and, as of the date of this writing, the public has heard nothing more. How is a voter to make an informed decision about a judge in this system? How to find a judge's financial disclosure: Follow this link to the Colorado Secretary of State's website - fill out this online form: https://www.coloradosos.gov/pubs/elections/CampaignFinance/requestCopy.html Story Judges the Gazette reported as failing to file. Is your judge on the list? Are you about to vote for a judge on the list? Has the judge faced any accountability for breaking the disclosure law? Did a legitimate investigation clear the judge of wrongdoing? To Story Story As this is written and an election approaches, we voters in Colorado have no idea ho w these investigations came out. Story Story Story "Two different district court judges - each with four years of missing disclosures ... - sit on judicial discipline commissions whose job it is to punish jurists for their misconduct." Denver Gazette, August 10, 2023 Story Story Story Story

How do we hold judges accountable? What mechanisms for accountability are available? Can we do a better job of holding our judges accountable? Perhaps a Request for Evaluation (RFE) made to the Colorado Commission on Judicial Discipline regarding judges' misconduct? Public scrutiny by investigative journalists and opinion columnists? The recent Masias Contract scandal (2019-2023) exposed Colorado's judicial system to scrutiny - and revealed flaws. Our haphazard efforts at accountability encountered dogged resistance from an entrenched bureaucracy that resisted. Colorado Supreme Court Justice Hart told an audience, "Hold us accountable." But are the judges being held accountable? As you read through the examples in press reports of cases that the judiciary obstructed, the victims that were re-victimized by the judiciary, those that lost their jobs or were threatened, ask yourself if you can find any reports of someone in the judiciary being held accountable for this obstruction or this abuse of regular people trying to do the right thing. At the same time, the scandal provided an opportunity to learn how our judicial administration operates and lessons for future scandals. Here is an analysis of accountability for this scandal and the investigation: "Preparing for the Next Scandal - Valuable insights from the 2019-2023 Judicial Corruption Scandal" Request for Evaluation (RFE) with the Colorado Commission on Judicial Conduct This is an example of an attempt to hold judges accountable by filing a formal Request for Evaluation (RFE) with the Colorado Commission on Judicial Conduct. As stated in the RFE, the allegations arise out of the Masias Contract Affair and resulting judical scandal of 2019-2023. The RFE is well-documented. Request for Evaluation 2024-10-20 Anonymous RFE 2024-10-20 Appendices to Anonymous RFE

Investigation of the "Memo's" allegations What follows is an itemized summary of the investigation. For a more detailed anlysis and critique, see this linked report: "Preparing for the Next Scandal - Valuable insights from the 2019-2023 Judicial Corruption Scandal" The allegation from the "Memo": Charge: Fail to investigate Destroyed records Investigation: The central witness was unavailable to the investigator and had a nondisclosure agreement. Many copies of the complaint existed and were circulated to many for discussion. However, no record of the complaint remains in existence to examine. Result: "Ultimately, there was no investigation conducted or any other response to the letter." The records were destroyed. "Matters were left to the Chief Justice--the person complained about--to manage." ILG Report at p. 13-14 "Complaints about any respondent, no matter how highly placed, should be independently assessed and investigated if they implicate the organization's legal obligations to maintain a harassment free workplace for employees. This is particularly true where, as here, an organization intends to send the message that no one employee or judicial officer is above the law. " ILG Report at p. 15 The allegation from the "Memo": Charge: Judge emailing pornography Chief Justice did not address and promoted person. Investigation: A central witness unavailable to investigator, had NDA Result: "Not Substantiated" ? Pornographic email confirmed to exist. Accused denied sending. Investigator accepted this but failed to explain how HR had a copy of the email if it was never sent. Accused was promoted. ILG Report at p. 16-19 The Judicial Department's human resources leaders (Masias and Brown) alleged in the "Memo" that their report was covered up. Yet, the Supreme Court's investigator reasoned that the absence of the investigative report (the one allegedly covered up) meant HR (the people alleging the coverup) determined the complaint was unfounded. Is this credible reasoning? The allegation from the "Memo": Charge: Suppressing harassment complaint during supreme court application process Signing accuser to a release Investigation: Both central witnesses were unavailable to the investigator. Both witnesses had signed nondisclosure agreements. Result: Accusation was made Accuser sent away during application process Accuser was demoted, treatment "appalling" Accuser paid to sign an NDA Justice said he heard from Masias that accuser recanted Accusation never revealed to Judicial Nominating Commission Accusation labelled as "Not Substantiated"? ILG Report at p. 20-26 Timeline of Judge's Application for Supreme Court vacancy Application Process Accuser sent away on admin leave On return, Accuser demoted, appalling treatment, signed to NDA Accuser's Experience Timeline The allegation from the "Memo": Charge: No action taken against judge for harassment Despite harassment, judge considered for senior program Investigation: A central witness unavailable to the investigator, had a nondisclosure agreement Result: Judge was disciplined for harassment Judge was approved for senior judge program even though a harasser. "Not Substantiated" ILG Report at p. 27-31 Side story on this charge To Story The judicial department was caught in its false claim that the judge was accepted for the senior judge program in ignorance of the harassment charge and discipline. The allegation from the "Memo": Charge: Two supreme court justices accused of racial discrimination Implication in Memo that justices are not being held accountable Investigation: None Result: Supreme Court specifically barred its investigators (ILG) from looking into this incident ILG Report at p. 8 The allegation from the "Memo": Charge: A chief district judge tried to block investigations in his district Investigation: A central witness whom the judicial department had paid for a nondisclosure agreement was unavailable to the investigator Result: Mixed. Statement made but core allegation of blocking investigations was "Not Substantiated" ILG Report at p. 34

Watch Jon Caldara's interview with former Chief Judge and legal system reformist Dennis Maes. They discuss the legacy of the Colorado judicial scandals. Go to video Go to Go to Go to Go to Go to Go to To Story Go to Go to Go to Go to Caldara: Vote "No" On All Judges Go to Go to To Story

Unnamed Judge - "Private Discipline" The Discipline Commission reports that it has taken "corrective action" with more than 250 judges throughout its history. Few of the judges needing "correction" are ever revealed to the public. Now and then, the Discipline Commission will describe a disciplined judge by misconduct but not name. Such a case is described below. Did you vote for this judge? You have no way of knowing. This judge admitted to violating the law. Was the judge ever prosecuted? Was the judge's "friend" protected from prosecution? Did this judge ever preside over a criminal case while he/she was trying to avoid prosecution for themselves or their friend? Are those cases tainted? We have no way of knowing.

Judge Brett Woods The Denver juvenile court presiding judge resigned amid revelations of alcohol abuse. Later reporting revealed that colleagues on the bench had covered up for him including pressuring a clerk of court that raised concerns. As well known as his drinking problem was, the Judicial Performance Commission nonetheless recommended that voters retain Judge Woods. Judge Woods eventually resigned and has now been publicly censured by the Colorado Supreme Court on December 9, 2024. Read the Court's order here: People v. Woods, 2024 CO 72 (Dec. 9, 2024) To Story To Story Evaluation

Chief Justice Brian Boatright Chief Justice Boatright led the judiciary's response to the series of scandals erupting over the last several years. Media reports indicate years of obstruction by the court and by Justice Boatright individually. Like many of the examples of misbehaving judges on this site, Justice Boatright has been recommended for retention by the performance commission without addressing the misconduct reported below. Follow this link to Justice Boatright's 2024 Judicial Performance Commission recommendation: This linked report details how Justice Boatright obstructed and delayed the referral of alleged wrongdoers to prosecutors. This coverup prevented prosecutors from charging them. In turn, Justice Boatright's personal involvement was shielded from being exposed. Read the report here (especially pages 9-10 and 20) : This section contains other reports of his misbehavior that were omitted from the 2024 evaluation. Boatright - Judicial Performance Evaluation.pdf Preparing for the Next Scandal - Valuable insights from the 2019-2023 Judicial Corruption Boatright misconduct "The people of Colorado deserve a judiciary that they know is being held accountable ... regardless of title or position." - Chief Justice Boatright, 2/16/2021 To Story To Story "the chief justice ... quietly met in a Denver parking garage ... to discuss the ... press for information in the [Commission's] inquiry." The chief justice said he "doesn't want to give it easily." To Story February, 2021 "I am committed to getting to the truth of the allegations that have damaged the public's perception of our critically important work." - Chief Justice Brian Boatright 2/18/2021 August, 2022 To Story To Story February, 2021 "we need to ensure that any allegation of wrongdoing is fully investigated and if wrongdoing is found, that there is full accountability regardless of anyone's position." - Chief Justice Brian Boatright 2/4/2021 August, 2022 To Story To Story "Members of the Colorado Supreme Court, directly and through its senior staff, made a series of decisions and took a series of actions throughout 2021 and 2022 that limited the ability of the commission ... to do its constitutionally mandated work." Link to Story To Story Code of Judicial Conduct Rule 2.10 (A) "A judge shall not make any public statement that might reasonably be expected to affect the outcome or impair the fairness of a matter pending or impending in any court or make any nonpublic statement that might substantially interfere with a fair trial or hearing. " Just as the Masias Contract Affair was coming into public view, the justices of the Colorado Supreme Court issued the following public statement: "The notion that former Chief Justice Coats and his counsel Andrew Rottman -- both dedicated public servants -- would ever authorize the use of state resources to silence a blackmailer is simply false." Ethics complaint filed against Justice Boatright At the very outset of the scandal, the Supreme Court justices demonstrated that they had prejudged the facts of the case - despite their position as ultimate deciders of the controversy - and the strong liklihood of their personal involvement in the matter. Consequently, at least one person (a retired chief judge) filed an ethics complaint with the Colorado Commission on Judicial Discipline. Link to the Ethics Complaint The discipline commission dismissed the complaint in 2024. They gave no real explanation. To Commentary