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