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

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 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

Amendment H was placed on the 2024 ballot by the state General Assembly. It was an integral part of a package to reform Colorado's judicial discipline system. The legislation arose out of a judicial corruptiuon scandal which took place between 2019 and 2023. Some reforms were implemented by way of amendments to state stautes. Other fixes required changes to the Colorado Constitution. While still other reforms are being made by changes to the Rule for the Colorado Commission foe Judicial Discipline. Here is what was changed by Amendment H. Proposition H passed overwhelmingly at the November 4, 2024 general election. 73% voters voted in favor of passage and amended Colorado Constitution, Art. VI, Sect. 23 amended process by which judges may be disciplined and removed. Prop. H required re-writing of the rules for Colo. Comm. on Judicial Discipline. Changes are currently being made to the rules governing how judges are disciplined. We have a section below regarding the Rulemaking Committee and its progress. Amendment H - Official analysis Amendment H - Text Amend H Amendment H Prop. H required re-writing of the Rules of the Colo. Comm. on Judicial Discipline. March 19, 2025 a rulemaking committee was established and announced the beginning of its rulemaking process. On July 29, 2025 the Rulemaking Committee announced the first of its amended and new rules, i.e. Rules 3.6 (establishing a Code of Conduct for Adjudicative Board Members, 34 regarding Temporary Suspension),and 37(e) (regarding with Stipulated Resolution of Formal Proceedings). On September 10, 2025 the Rulemaking Committee announced interim Rules 35 (Resolution of Informal Proceedings or Other Actions) and 36 (Resolution of Formal Proceedings) As is customary with the rulemaking process, notice was given that the committee would accept comments from the public about the proposed rule changes. As of the October 3, 2025 hearing on public comments the committee had received comments from at least two individuals. One comment came from David Dean Smith. Available at this link: Another series of comments came from Christopher S.P. Gregory, Esq. Mr. Gregory’s comments, although received by the committee do not appear to have been included in the written record. They are available below: His comments also relate to a Request for Evaluation he has previously made to the Colorado Commission on Judicial Discipline. Mr. Gregory is an attorney who formerly served as Executive Director of the Colorado Commission on Judicial Discipline. Mr. Gregory’s comments consist of a series of objections and requests. He states that the composition of the rulemaking committee itself is merely a perpetuation of a 6-year pattern of corruption within the Colorado Judicial Department which produced the Masias Contract Affair and Judicial Scandal of 2019-2023. Specifically he calls for: the formation of a conflict-free special adjudicative special tribunal; an independent investigation by a special assistant attorney general; a legislative referral to conflict-free counsel; the dissolution the current rulemaking committee; and, that there be a comprehensive revision of the Rules for the Colorado Commission on Judicial Discipline. Comment of David Dean Smith Link to Rulemaking Committee CCJD New Judicial Discipline Rule-Making Committee Forms Comment by Gregory 2025-08-25 Comment by Gregory 2025-09-12 Comment by Gregory 2025-09-12a Rulemaking Committee Links to Public Comments on Rules Colorado media outlets urged voters to vote YES in favor of Amendment H. Link to Editorial Link to Guest Opinion Link to Editorial Link to Endorsement Link to Endorsement Link to Denver Post story

Judge Robert A. Rand Judge Rand's story is similar to others like Judges Woods, Chase, and Kiesnowski. His misbehavior was well known but accepted by the Judicial Department for years. Like the other judges with long histories of misbehavior, in his last evaluation, the Judicial Performance Commission recommended that voters retain Judge Rand. To Story To Story To Story To Story To Story To Story To Story Recommended for retention by the voters To Evaluation

Cases & Controversies Finding: Sexual Harasser Sexual Assault Colorado's merit selection system has faced a series of public controversies and scandals surrounding its operation. Some have questioned the system's ability to cope with allegations of judicial misconduct, obstruction, and undue influence. Most cases remain wrapped in secrecy, but a limited number of examples make it into the public discussion. Here are some of those. These provide insights and generate questions that could be useful to anyone concerned with assuring Colorado's judicial system is free from misconduct and corruption. This collection of "cases and controversies" is presented to illustrate how Colorado's system of judicial selection, retention, and discipline operates. Masias Contract Affair Tim Masters Incident Unknown Judge Judge Grant Sullivan Unidentified Judges Judge Natalie Chase Judge Ross Buchanan Judge Mark Thompson Judge Ryan Kamada Judge John Scipione Judge Debra Gunkel Judge Robert A. Rand Judge Brett Woods Judge Robert Kiesnowski Judge Jonathan Walker Judge Anne Woods Unnamed Judge - Private Discipline Judge Andrew Armatas Justices of Colo. Sup. Court Justices Gabriel & Hart Justice Richard Gabriel Judge Laurie Booras Chief Justice Brian Boatright Judge Peter Michaelson Judge Lance Timbreza

Opinions and Reforms The scandals within the Colorado Judicial Department sparked extensive commentary by many thought leaders. Here are links to representative samples: Opinion Samples These scandals also generated many proposals for reform. Follow this link to see a sample of those proposals: Reform Proposals The scandals also prompted constitutional battles in the Colorado legislature. In turn, these resulted in proposed legislative reforms. These will be presented to Colorado voters in 2024. Here are those proposals and their background stories. Legislative Story

Merit Selection System Theory & Practice In the 1960's, Colorado citizens amended the state constitution to do away with political elections as the system for selecting our judges and holding them accountable to the rule of law. We replaced elections with the "Merit Selection System," also known as the Missouri Plan. Our Merit Selection System has three components of accountability for judges, the Nomination Commissions, the Performance Commissions, and the Discipline Commission. Sixty years later, the question for Colorado citizens is how well our system of accountability for judges is working. We want a system that gives Colorado excellent judges. Nominating Commissions Start Now Performance Commissions Start Now Discipline Commission Start Now

Justice Gabriel and the "appalling" treatment of his accuser To Story It is difficult to share the complicated facts regarding the allegations made against Justice Gabriel. But, the surrounding circumstances raise legitimate questions. In the Masias-Brown Memo, the Justice was alleged to have used his influence to suppress harassment allegations made against him. Today, even the record of contemporaneous news reporting of the story is hard to locate. In this section, we provide the pieces that are still available. You decide if the way this allegation was handled supports or undermines the Memo's claim that the allegation was suppressed to protect the Justice. We start with the allegation made in the Memo's third bullet point: Link to news reporting about the Memo Full Text of Memo The allegation is that Masias, one of the authors of the Memo and former director of human resources for the Judicial Department, suppressed a misconduct allegation against Judge Gabriel to keep his Supreme Court application clean. Allegedly, Masias did this by silencing the accuser and paying her for a non-disclosure agreement The story broke identifying Justice Gabriel as the judge accused in the Memo on February 26, 2021. But that news report from the Denver Post seems to have been removed - and is now very hard to find. But, here is a link to the story -- as long as it lasts. To Story While it Lasts In 2023, the Judicial Department's lawyers (Investigations Law Group) declared that the allegations against Justice Gabriel were "unfounded." The Denver Post removed the original story about the alleged suppression and replaced it with a statement. Statement by Denver Post But was the allegation that Masias suppressed the misconduct claim to protect Justice Gabriel invalidated by the lawyer's report? ILG Report Link to ILG Report Important to Realize While the ILG investigators were selected by an independent panel, nonetheless, they were retained, paid, and controlled by the Judiciary . ILG did not interview the law clerk who accused Justice Gabriel. Neither did ILG interview Mindy Masias, the person who alleged that she suppressed the complaint. ILG approached both of them, but neither talked to ILG. The judicial department had paid each of them for agreements to remain silent. Masias, as director of Human Resources, received the harassment accusation on September 12th. HR immediately interviewed the accuser and a co-clerk. ILG Report, Page 21. Masias waited until September 15th to interview the judge. As a result, the interview was after the judge submitted his application for the Supreme Court on September 13th. ILG Report, Page 22. The interview of the accuser was recorded. The interview of the judge was not. ILG only had the judge's account of what was said. ILG Report, Page 21. Immediately after her accusation interview on September 12th, the accuser was sent home on "administrative leave" ILG Report, Page 21. 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 No one could explain to ILG investigators why the accuser was placed on administrative leave. ILG Report, Page 21. The accuser was not brought back to work at the court from administrative leave until "a day or two" after the accused judge had completed the Supreme Court application process and been interviewed for the position. ILG Report, Page 22. After being allowed to return from administrative leave, the accuser was "penalized by putting her off in a corner." ILG Report, Page 23. The Judicial Branch's lawyer said she was "appalled" by the treatment of Justice Gabriel's accuser and called it "traumatizing." ILG Report, Page 23. The accuser would later assert she was the victim of retaliation. The Judicial Branch would settle this claim with the accuser. ILG Report, Page 22-23. The accuser would be paid for the rest of her term but not be required to work. As part of the deal, the Judicial Department required she sign a non-disclosure agreement. ILG Report, Pages 23-24. When interviewed by ILG, Justice Gabriel reportedly claimed that Masias had told him a few days into the accuser's administrative leave that she withdrew her accusations. ILG Report, Page 21. Bound by non-disclosure agreements, neither the accuser nor Masias is available to confirm (or deny) Justice Gabriel's version of events. The 2021 report by the Denver Post , has now been removed from parts of the internet. The body responsible for selecting nominees to fill Supreme Court vacancies never learned of the accusation Justice Gabriel was not successful in his first Supreme Court application, but he was appointed to a later vacancy. Was the Memo's original claim of covering this up to protect the judge "unfounded"?

"Members of the Colorado Supreme Court, directly and through its senior staff, made a series of decisions and took ... actions throughout 2021 and 2022 that limited the ability of the commission ... to do its constitutionally mandated work." To Story For an in-depth analysis of how the Colorado Supreme Court responded to revelations of scandal, look at judicial coverups as documented in "Preparing for the Next Scandal: Valuable Insights from the 2019-2023 Judicial Corruption Scandal." Preparing for the Next Scandal - Valuable insights from the 2019-2023 Judicial Corruption Scandal To Story To Story To Story "What can you do with a redacted report? It was a setup from the start." 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 Feb. 2021 "Today, we met as a court and viewed the memo for the first time ." - Colorado Supreme Court 2/8/2021 June 2022 To Story "The memo itself was secret for almost two years, until ... Ryan blew the whistle" To Story In 2020, the State Auditor found an "appearance of impropriety" in contracting with Masias. To Story It did so without the now infamous Memo, withheld from the Auditor until 2021 February 2021 "nobody wants these investigations to go forward more than I do ... My promise ... to all of Colorado ... We're going to get this right." - Chief Justice Brian Boatright 2/16/2021 To Story August 2022 Feb. 2021 "we are retaining the services of an outside investigator to conduct an independent review of all of the allegations mentioned in the memo ." - Colo. Supreme Court 2/8/2021 July 2022 "[Memo Item 5] 'Current pending EEOC complaint against two justice [of the supreme court]' [Judiciary's Investigator] ILG was instructed not to investigate this matter" - Chief Justice Boatright 7/11/2022 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 To Story To Story To Story "Every woman that [brings forward mistreatment] -- they've all been laid off, written up, disciplined, pushed out, moved over ..." To Story "I didn't want to create a paper trail for the chief [justice], so I'll trust you'll know the best way to keep him informed." To Story Justices Boatright, Marquez, and Berkenkotter are on the 2024 ballot for retention. The performance commission recommends they be retained by voters--without ever addressing their obstruction and deceptions reported above. To Evaluations