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

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"?

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

The Masias Contract Affair Mindy Masias was a high-ranking administrator in the Colorado judicial branch. She was terminated for financial misdealings and then given a two-million-dollar no-bid contract. The judicial department's top administrator would later allege the contract was part of an effort to cover up allegations of judicial misconduct. Years of investigations would follow. The Colorado Supreme Court would repeatedly be accused of obstructing them and would launch its own. Some allegations would be confirmed. The judicial department's investigators would argue that some were unfounded. After everything was said and done, the Masias contract was clearly improper but the investigations left responsibility for it muddy. The final result also seemed to confirm widespread and continuing efforts by the judicial branch to cover up allegations of misconduct that are made against judges. 2019 "The seven Supreme Court Justices, including Chief Justice Coats, approved of Masias' contract, as well as its cancellation" "[Controller Dukes resigned] out of disgust for this whole thing." Link to Story Story The investigation would start in July 2019, but the Justices and their lawyers would withhold the infamous Memo until February 2021 when the Denver Post first revealed its existence to the public. Story 2020 Link to Editorial The Masias contract "degrades the public trust" and "gives the appearance of impropriety and appears to be a violation of the Judicial Code of Conduct." Story The Auditor reached these 2020 conclusions without the Judiciary revealing the existence of the now infamous Memo, which had been known to the justices since 2019 Nine judicial department employees received buyouts totaling $518,000. Story 2021 Story Story "Any other person present ... isn't talking. Two have non-disclosure agreements" Ethics Rule 2.10 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 As a result of this apparent violation of judicial ethics, an ethics complaint was filed. Link to Ethics Complaint Eventually, the complaint was dismissed without a hearing. Colorado Supreme Court Justices publicly stated at the outset of the investigation into the Masias Contract Affair: "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." Story "The Judicial Department has refused to release the memo [listing examples of alleged coverups]" Story "Destruction of evidence, payoffs to keep harassment victims silent and repeated efforts to simply look the other way ... permeated ... Judicial ... for years." By the time the Justices decided to release the Memo to investigators in 2021, the Justices had been keeping it secret from investigators for about 1.5 years. Story "These allegations must be investigated in full view of the public until trust in our judiciary is no longer in question," stated State Senate and House leaders "If you didn't have these whistle-blowers and ... press ..., where might this have landed?" - quoting State Senate President Garcia Story "We [the Colorado Bar Association] urge the Colorado Judicial Department to be fully transparent and to take the necessary steps to redress these issues promptly, in order to maintain the public's faith in the administration of justice in Colorado." February 11, 2021 Story One of these lawyers fighting to keep the secrets of the Memo would later be put on the court of appeals through a committee chaired by the Chief Justice, his client. Story "The memo paints a picture of a broken system. Judges ... operated with impunity - which is rich coming from those we trust with doling out justice. ... The memo itself was secret for almost two years." Story Story "The [discipline commission] says it was in the dark about the claims of ... misbehavior and harassment from judges going ... uninvestigated." Story Story Story Story But, once selected, the investigators would be directed and controlled by the Justices. Story Justice Gabriel Story Story Later, behind closed doors, the Justices would overrule the committee and restrict the investigators, barring examination of some critical topics. The Constitution of Colorado assigns investigation of judge misconduct complaints to the Discipline Commission. By assigning their own lawyers to investigate the allegations, the Justices replaced the Constitutional process with investigators they would control. Reporting over the coming years would reveal that, at the same time, the Justices and their people were blocking the Constitutional investigators. Learn More Story Story Story Story Story Story "the most important question is ... whether the public can trust that the Judicial Department is taking this problem seriously" Story 2022 Story "This ... is an epic clash ... a critical showdown of Constitutional authority." Story Story Story Story Story Story Story Story Story Report of Judicial Department's Lawyer, RCT RCT's Report Story Story Investigators agree goal of the contract was to "keep Mindy happy" Story Story Story Story "Judicial was in full control of the investigations." Story 2023 Story Story Chief Justice Nathan "Ben" Coats was Publicly Censured for his Role in the Masias Contract Affair. Read the details here: 2023-08-07 People v. Coats - 23SA114.pdf Shortly after the recommendation to publicly censure the former chief justice, the membership of the Discipline Commission was changed. Story

Resources Speaking Out to Defend the Rule of Law Professor of philosophy Gerald Postema notes that everyone talks today about the "rule of law" but few seem to know what it is. He provides an engaging discussion of its meaning and importance. Prof. Postema also presents a compelling case for the necessity of holding people in power, like judges and our institutions charged with upholding law, accountable to the rule of law--a responsibility that is "almost sacred." Link to Prof. Postema's Article The Memo View the "Memo" that started it all. The "Memo" had been compiled by senior judicial department executives. They laid out instances of judicial misconduct which they alleged had been covered up in Colorado's Judiciary. Link to the Memo The Judicial Department's Version The Colorado Judiciary hired two law firms to investigate under its control. They were Robert Troyer ("RCT") and the Investigative Law Group ("ILG"). Primary accusers were not available to them and some topics were placed off-limits. Read their reports of the Judiciary's version of events: RCT's Report ILG's Report Judicial coverups as documented in this report: "Preparing for the Next Scandal: Valuable Insights from the 2019-2023 Judicial Corruption Scandal" To Report In January of 2024, the Colorado legislature held annual SMART Act hearings. At that time it heard a summary report on lessons from the Masias allegations and their handling. Judicial Integrity Project Report Colorado's longest-term advocate for reforming judicial accountability is the Judicial Integrity Project. Read its report to the legislature here. To Report Judicial Department Cooperation? Colorado's constitution vests the power to investigate judicial misconduct in the Judicial Discipline Commission. Did the Judicial Department cooperate with the official investigation by the Judicial Discipline Commission? Reports from the two entities highlight major controversies. Judicial Dept's Report Discipline Commission Report Appx 1 Appx 2 Designing Accountability into the Judicial Discipline System How can systems be designed to enhance judicial accountability? A former member of Colorado's Judicial Discipline Commission examines this topic in an article published in the American Judges Court Review . To Report Colorado Legislative Interim Committee on Judicial Discipline In 2022, Colorado's Legislative Interim Committee on Judicial Discipline held hearings to examine the judicial ethics accountability system. It considered legislative remedies. The Committee received many informative reports and proposals available here. To Materials Original Intent of Colorado's Merit Selection For the 40th anniversary, a justice of the Colorado Supreme Court wrote a history of the system and discussed its intent. Consider whether today's system is achieving its goals. To Article

Constitutional Amendment H HCR 23-1001 Related Reforms HB 23-1205 Go To Go To Go To Constitutional Amendment to Raise Judicial Retention Threshold Advances Go To

Judge Kiesnowski's case is similar to Judges Woods and Scipione. The Judge engaged in long-term harassment of an employee and enjoyed the protection of the judiciary for years. Despite these years of harassing an underling, in his last evaluation, the Judicial Performance Commission recommended that voters retain Judge Kiesnowski. To Story To Story To Story To Evaluation

"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

Preparing for the Next Scandal: Valuable Insights from the 2019-2023 Judicial Corruption Scandal in Colorado. ColoradoJudges.org. Coverup allegations Supreme Court Boatright Our Content This website is a gathering point for information and materials from past judicial scandals - and suggestions for how to mitigate and prevent them in the future. Colorado has approximately 350 state court judges at any one time. Our collection of "cases & controversies" relates to a small, but important, segment of those judges. Our goal is to facilitate your access to the professional journalism available about your Colorado judges. Colorado has a strong tradition of a robust press corps that holds the powerful to account. We have superb media outlets like The Denver Post, The Denver Gazette, The Colorado Sun and Colorado Politics staffed by skilled professionals like David Migoya, Shelly Bradbury, and Michael Karlik who specialize in understanding and covering our judicial system. However, once a story runs, it can be hard to find unless you already know what you are looking for. We also have extensive legislative reports with important information that would otherwise gather dust in obscure archives. ColoradoJudges.org brings these well-researched and sourced materials together in one place that is easily accessible to members of the public. We include links to the stories cited through their original sources. As a result, you may sometimes have to access the original through a paywall. Who We Are ColoradoJudges.org does not solicit or accept funds or advertising. The curator and webmaster for ColoradoJudges.org is Alan Higbie. Email contact : info.colojudges.org@gmail.com He is a retired trial lawyer who practiced for 42 years in Colorado and Alaska. He served for 8 years on a local Colorado judicial performance commission, during which time he became familiar with the merit selection and retention process. The Masias Contract Scandal caught his attention. As he peeled back one layer after another, it, unfortunately, looked more and more as if the administration of our judicial system was corrupt. Alan Higbie is the author of "Preparing for the Next Scandal: Valuable Insights from the 2019-2023 Judicial Corruption Scandal." He took a special interest in the circumstances surrounding the flawed indictment of his former state legislator, Sen. Pete Lee. "Preparing for the Next Scandal - Valuable insights from the 2019-2023 Judicial Corruption Scandal" About ColoradoJudges.org Quality news about judges. Where you want it. When you want it. At ColoradoJudges.org, we believe transparent access to information about our court system is crucial to preserving the rule of law in a democracy. We are dedicated to helping the public access trustworthy and valuable information that can help you understand the legal system and make informed decisions. Be sure to see our Recent Developments page to Recent Developments