________________________________________________________________

COLORADO LEGISLATIVE HOUSE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE

HOUSE BILL NO. 2017-1303
PROPOSED BY REP. WIST, LEE AND VANWINKLE
& SENATORS KAGAN AND GARDNER

PROPOSED AMENDMENTS
Link to Colorado HB17-1303
4/21/2017
COLORADO LEGISLATURE; HOUSE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE, HB17-1303

Dear Legislators:
We are a group of Colorado citizens that pride ourselves in giving the pro-se
litigants in the State of Colorado a voice in the Judiciary. As I am sure you are aware,
pro-se litigants are the largest number of parties in our courts and according to the

Page 1 of 26 PROPOSED AMENDMENTS FOR COLORADO HOUSE BILL 2017-1303

Presented by FACEUS, TRANSPARENT COURTS & thousands of pro-se litigants across the state of
Colorado
Colorado Supreme Court studies, comprise 51% of Civil Litigants in all civil litigation and
upwards of 74% in Family Courts.
Therefore, it is imperative that Judges uphold their oath of office and make sure
that everyones Constitutional rights are upheld. This is especially important for pro-se
litigants who dont have the backstop of an attorney to help them through the
complexities that litigation and the courts may bring. As a general rule, as pro-se
litigants, we cannot afford to appeal a courts ruling and while we may not like the
judges decision; it may never have the appearance of bias and/or corruption.
At the grass roots level; the citizens of Colorado have lost the trust of the
Judiciary with their decisions; to self-exempting themselves out of CORA; to Legislating
from the bench; to turning a blind eye on corrupt matters of Judges and Attorneys.
We heard these complaints on the roadshow of the JPC around the state. Not
only from citizens, but from attorneys and district JPC commissioners as well.
Following, please find our requests for amendments to HB17-1303. And while
reviewing them for your consideration it is important to remember that we have lived
through these atrocities with rogue judges as the main culprit. We have story after story
after story of families being devastated, not by con men or criminals, but by the courts.
We believe that if the Courts in Colorado become 100% Transparent and
Accountable again; that the citizens will again regain their trust and respect for the
courts.
Thank you for your considerations in these amendments followed by the reason
we believe each is important.

/s/Peter Coulter
/s/Luanne Fleming
/s/Robin Austin
/s/Ruth Sadler
/s/ Cliff Battista
AND thousands of pro-se litigants that are depending on us to get this
right.

Page 2 of 26 PROPOSED AMENDMENTS FOR COLORADO HOUSE BILL 2017-1303

Presented by FACEUS, TRANSPARENT COURTS & thousands of pro-se litigants across the state of
Colorado
 AMENDMENT 1
COURTROOM CAMERAS
EVERY COLORADO COURT ROOM MUST BE PROVIDED
WITH AN AUDIO AND VIDEO CAMERA MOUNTED IN SUCH A
LOCATION THAT THE JUDGE OR JUSTICE MAY VE VIEWED
AND HEARD.
EACH CAMERA WILL HAVE AN IP ADDRESS AND
CAPABLE OF WIRELESS TRANSMISSION THROUGH A
MANDATORY APPROPRIATE WIFI MEDIA IN THE
COURTHOUSE.
ALL CAMERAS WILL BE RECORDING AUTOMATICALLY
BETWEEN THE HOURS OF 7AM TO 6PM
EACH CAMERAS RECORDING WILL BE STORED FOR A
MINIMUM OF TWO YEARS THROUGH A THIRD PARTY DATA
CLOUD STORAGE ENTERPRISE.
THE STATE JUDICIAL PERFORMANCE COMMISSION
WILL HAVE EXCLUSIVE CONTROL OF THE CAMERA SYSTEM
AND WILL MAKE EVERY EFFORT TO MAKE AS MUCH OF THE
RECORDINGS AVAILABLE TO THE PUBLIC AS SOON AS
POSSIBLE IF NOT IN REAL TIME.
THE CAMERAS MAY BE USED AS THE OFFICIAL
RECORDING DEVICE BY THE COURTS IF THEY SO WANT
SUBJECT TO EXCLUSIVE CONTROL BY THE STATE
COMMISSION.

Page 3 of 26 PROPOSED AMENDMENTS FOR COLORADO HOUSE BILL 2017-1303

Presented by FACEUS, TRANSPARENT COURTS & thousands of pro-se litigants across the state of
Colorado
 REASONS:
The addition of cameras in the courtrooms was first brought
up by retired Denver District Court Judge and present Colorado
State Judicial Performance Commission, Ms. Habas. After she
suggested it, the JPCs own plans for the reset were put on hold
but we decided to investigate the costs involved in putting
cameras in our courts and found them very, very reasonable. IP
Wi-Fi cameras are extremely budget priced ranging in the $30
and up for both video and audio with good resolutions. We also
checked into the cloud storage data of the cameras and that is
very reasonable also costing less than $1.50 per month per
camera for a two-year storage of data; or in other words, $600 per
month for 400 cameras for two years worth of storage. In other
words, if a days worth of data were taken today, it would be
stored for two years before being deleted. There would be no
expensive wiring or receivers needed. Only a low voltage power
supply to the cameras; and adequate Wi-Fi system in the Court
complex and a common laptop to view and control the system.
We believe it would solve a great many problems in our
Judiciary such as:
Solve the issue of monitoring Senior Judges. A state
commissioner or a volunteer could review the internet file from the
Senior Judges day in court, and from the convenience of their
home or office.
The Judge would not know whether s/he was being watched for
judicial retention and so a more accurate measure of his or her
demeanor could be determined.

Page 4 of 26 PROPOSED AMENDMENTS FOR COLORADO HOUSE BILL 2017-1303

Presented by FACEUS, TRANSPARENT COURTS & thousands of pro-se litigants across the state of
Colorado
 A litigant or attorney could use the tape to file a complaint against
a judge. And the Judge could also use the camera footage to
defend his or her actions.
It has been proven that a person acts differently/better when they
know there is a camera watching their behavior.
A good judge should welcome these cameras while a bad judge
will detest and not want them

Page 5 of 26 PROPOSED AMENDMENTS FOR COLORADO HOUSE BILL 2017-1303

Presented by FACEUS, TRANSPARENT COURTS & thousands of pro-se litigants across the state of
Colorado
 AMENDMENT 2
SURVEY DISTRIBUTION
EVERY LITIGANT MUST RECEIVE A SURVEY FOR THEIR
RESPECTIVE JUDGE.

EVERY LITIGANT WILL RECEIVE A QR STAMP

FROM THE COURT CLERK BEFORE TRIAL WITH A
PASSWORD TO AN ONLINE SURVEY.

THERE SHALL BE NO NAMES ON THE SURVEYS SO

THE LITIGANTS CAN BE ASSURED OF ANNOMITY.

THERE SHALL BE SIGNS IN EVERY COURTROOM

NOTING THE CAMERA VIDEO AVAILABILITY AND THE RIGHT
TO SURVEY THE RESPECTIVE JUDGE.

THE JUDICIAL PERFORMANCE COMMISSION SHALL

CONTINUALLY MONITOR THE DISTRIBUTION OF SURVEYS
BY THE INDIVIDUAL COURTS AND COURT CLERKS.

IT IS THE JUDGES RESPONSIBILITY TO MAKE SURE

EVERY LITIGANT GETS A SURVEY AND EXPLAIN HOW TO
GO ONLINE AND FILL IT OUT.

SURVEYS BY MAIL SHALL BE PROVIDED FOR THOSE

PARTIES THAT REQUEST IT.

REASONS:
Page 6 of 26 PROPOSED AMENDMENTS FOR COLORADO HOUSE BILL 2017-1303
Presented by FACEUS, TRANSPARENT COURTS & thousands of pro-se litigants across the state of
Colorado
 We have absolute proof that up to this point, surveys have
NOT been distributed per the mandates of the present Statute.
We have written documents from Mr. Wagner indicating that
Justice Rice, Mr. Gerry Marroney and Kent Wagner set
parameters as to whom should receive a survey. And because
the parameters were not considered rules by these 3, [Mr.
Wagner, Mr. Marroney and Justice Rice] the parameters were
unknown both to the Commission and the Colorado Supreme
Court. The present day statute is clear that every litigant should
receive a survey, but Mr. Wagner provided me a set of
parameters where they excluded certain sections of litigants
including Rule 120 persons. We believe they did this in a
concerted effort to get higher survey scores for judges they
wanted kept on the bench. Using a qr code would maximize
survey results and would also provide an easy way for the public
and the Commission to track that every litigant received a survey.
It would be simple and inexpensive to set up:
Every Judge/Clerk would have a qr code generator software
setup and when anyone came in that was an interested party to a
case, they received the qr code which they then scanned with
their phone or computer; leading them to a survey which they
then filled out and hit the send button. There would be provisions
for persons who did not have a way to read the qr code; perhaps
a reader in the courthouse, or by mail. To the best of knowledge
and belief, according to Mr. Wagner, return rates are presently
less than 20%; this method should bring it up to at least 70% or
higher providing a much more accurate survey result of the
litigants for the commission to base its recommendations.

Page 7 of 26 PROPOSED AMENDMENTS FOR COLORADO HOUSE BILL 2017-1303

Presented by FACEUS, TRANSPARENT COURTS & thousands of pro-se litigants across the state of
Colorado
 AMENDMENT 3
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION IN
THE HEARINGS AND
MEETINGS.
THE PUBLIC SHALL BE INVITED TO PARTICIPATE AND
MAKE COMMENTS IN THE RETENTION HEARINGS OF
EVERY JUDGE BY RULES PROVIDED BY STATE
COMMISSION.

THE PUBLIC SHALL BE INVITED TO PARTICIPATE AND

MAKE COMMENTS IN THE MEETINGS OF EVERY JUDGE
ACCORDING TO RULES PROVIDED BY THE STATE
COMMISSION.

EVERY MEETING OF EVERY COMMISSION BOTH STATE

AND DISTRICT MUST BE RECORDED AND PROVIDED TO
THE PUBLIC VIA THE NET AT NO CHARGE.

REASONS:
OPENING UP THE MEETINGS TO THE PUBLIC WILL
SHOW TRANSPARENCY RUSULTING IN A RESURGANCE OF
CONFIDENCE THAT THE SYSTEM IS NOT BIASED AND/OR
CORRUPTED.

Page 8 of 26 PROPOSED AMENDMENTS FOR COLORADO HOUSE BILL 2017-1303

Presented by FACEUS, TRANSPARENT COURTS & thousands of pro-se litigants across the state of
Colorado
 AMENDMENT 4
MOVE THE JUDICIAL
PERFORMANCE
COMMISSION UNDER THE
SECRETARY OF STATES
OFFICE.
THE JUDICIAL PERFORMANCE COMMISSION SHALL BE
PLACED UNDER THE SECRETARY OF STATES OFFICE.

REASONS:
In retired Supreme Court Justice Rebecca Kourlis book,
Transparent Courts, she points out the importance of not having
the Judicial Performance Commission associated and housed in
the judicial branch because of the possible appearance of
impropriety. We heard Judge Samour indicate how difficult it is to
do reviews on Senior judges; this movement would help eliminate
perceived or real conflicts of interest and again help to bring back
confidence in the courts for the individuals of this state which is
designed to protect.

Page 9 of 26 PROPOSED AMENDMENTS FOR COLORADO HOUSE BILL 2017-1303

Presented by FACEUS, TRANSPARENT COURTS & thousands of pro-se litigants across the state of
Colorado
 AMENDMENT 5
EVERY DECISION BY THE
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR
MUST BE REVIEWED AND
ALLOWED BY THE STATE
COMMISSION
EVERY ACT AND DECISION BY THE EXECUTIVE
DIRECTOR MUST BE REVIEWED AND APPROVED BY THE
STATE JUDICIAL COMMISSION BOARD.

REASONS:
There is a significant issue in the current format where the
Director, Kent Wagner; the director of the Supreme Court
Administrative Division, Jerry Marroney and Chief Justice Nancy
Rice as sole head of the Administrative Division have set what
they call parameters which arbitrarily limit who receives a
survey. Because they have tagged them as parameters, they then
surmise and state that they do not need any State Commission or
Supreme Court approval like Rules are required to have.
Currently, they have set a parameter that disallows Rule 120
litigants from receiving a survey which the statute mandates they
should receive. Before we brought it up to the State Commission
a couple of months ago; we dont believe they were aware of the
situation and we are not sure that the entire Supreme Court was
Page 10 of 26 PROPOSED AMENDMENTS FOR COLORADO HOUSE BILL 2017-1303
Presented by FACEUS, TRANSPARENT COURTS & thousands of pro-se litigants across the state of
Colorado
aware either. This provision would stop this type of actions by the
Director.

Page 11 of 26 PROPOSED AMENDMENTS FOR COLORADO HOUSE BILL 2017-1303

Presented by FACEUS, TRANSPARENT COURTS & thousands of pro-se litigants across the state of
Colorado
 AMENDMENT 6
STATISTICALLY VALID
SURVEYS
SURVEYS MUST BE SUBMITTED TO EVERY LITIGANT IN
FRONT OF A RESPECTIVE JUDGE OR JUSTICE.

IN ANY INSTANCE WHERE THERE IS LESS THAN A 100%

RETURN OF SURVEYS BY LITIGANTS FOR A RESPECTIVE
JUDGE OR JUSTICE, IT MUST BE DETERMINED BY THE
COMMISSION TO BE STATISTICALLY VALID CONCERNING
DISTRIBUTION OF SAID SURVEY.

REASONS:
The best reason for this amendment is a past example. In
the 2014 retention election, County Judge Carolyn Moore of
Boulder County was up for retention. She was given a do not
retain vote by the Boulder District JPC. Soon after the do not
retain vote was announced; District Attorney Stan Garnett came
forward in the newspapers and indicated that none of the 29
Deputy District Attorneys had received a survey. Further, they all
published affidavits that if they had received surveys, they would
have unanimously asked that Judge Moore be retained. Mr.
Wagner then came forward and stated in the Boulder Times that
the survey distribution was an anomaly. Putting his own words
into common language; he was stating that he, through
Page 12 of 26 PROPOSED AMENDMENTS FOR COLORADO HOUSE BILL 2017-1303
Presented by FACEUS, TRANSPARENT COURTS & thousands of pro-se litigants across the state of
Colorado
parameters set by himself, Jerry Marroney and Chief Justice
Rice decided not to include 29 Attorneys that they knew would
submit surveys to retain Judge Moore! I had a sampling statistical
expert run the numbers. It was a 7.2 Billion to 1 odds that this
could have happened randomly as necessitated by statistically
valid sampling of a pool. His explanation is suspicious at best.
At one of the last Commission meeting where they
suggested amendments to this bill before it was submitted; it was
Mr. Wagner who suggested disposal of the words statistically
valid surveys in the new bill. These words are essential in order
to make sure that any survey that doesnt include the entire pool
[all litigants, attorneys, etc. mandated by the bill] are still
statistically valid samples. As the wording is now, a single survey
submittal of a Judge or Justice could be considered to comply
with the bill/statute. These two critical words MUST BE
REINSTATED INTO THE BILL to assure the public that the
system is fair and unbiased in any manner.

Page 13 of 26 PROPOSED AMENDMENTS FOR COLORADO HOUSE BILL 2017-1303

Presented by FACEUS, TRANSPARENT COURTS & thousands of pro-se litigants across the state of
Colorado
 AMENDMENT 7
SURVEY COMPILATION
AND VERIFICATION BY
STATE AUDITOR
THE STATE AUDITOR MUST COLLECT, AUDIT, COMPILE AND
VERIFY ALL JUDICIAL SURVEYS.

REASONS:
Under current conditions no one knows for sure whether
surveys are being distributed and compiled according to the
mandates of the statute. While Mr. Wagner states that over
20,000 surveys have been distributed to pro-se litigants; in the
past 4 years we have not found 1 pro-se litigant that has received
a survey. And because everything is done behind closed doors;
we have no way of knowing what is going on with the surveys.
By transferring that duty to the State Auditor instead of an
out of State private company; the citizens of Colorado can be
assured that the surveys are being handled in the manner
mandated by the statute; re-instilling confidence of the litigants in
their legal system. The overall cost for appropriations should
remain neutral with the money appropriated for outside
compilation instead being transferred to the State Audit to run the
system.

Page 14 of 26 PROPOSED AMENDMENTS FOR COLORADO HOUSE BILL 2017-1303

Presented by FACEUS, TRANSPARENT COURTS & thousands of pro-se litigants across the state of
Colorado
Page 15 of 26 PROPOSED AMENDMENTS FOR COLORADO HOUSE BILL 2017-1303
Presented by FACEUS, TRANSPARENT COURTS & thousands of pro-se litigants across the state of
Colorado
 AMENDMENT 8
JUSTICES AND JUDGES
THE ATTORNEY REGULATION JUDGE OF THE
SUPREME COURT AND APPELLATE JUSTICES ARE
INCLUDED IN THE DEFINITION OF JUDGES AND JUSTICES.

REASONS:
In Chief Justice Rices state of the Judiciary last year, she pointed
out the difference between Judges and Justices indicating
persons acting by themselves are considered Judges; while more
than one person acting to decide a case are referred to as
Justices. The new bill is unclear as to whether Appellate Court
Justices are included in retention. Also unclear is whether or not
the Attorney Regulation Judge is to be included in Judicial
Retention. We absolutely believe that Appellate Court Justices
should face retention and the OAR Judge should also face
retention.

Page 16 of 26 PROPOSED AMENDMENTS FOR COLORADO HOUSE BILL 2017-1303

Presented by FACEUS, TRANSPARENT COURTS & thousands of pro-se litigants across the state of
Colorado
 AMENDMENT 9
75% Retain vote by voters
EVERY JUDGE RETAINED BY THE VOTERS BY A COUNT
OF LESS THAN 75% BUT GREATER THAN 50% SHALL BE
REQUIRED TO GO THROUGH ANOTHER 2 YEAR
PROVISIONAL RETENTION PERIOD.

REASONS:
This gives a Judge/Justice a chance to improve his survey
results and voter approval. It also allows litigants the opportunity
to say we will give the Judge/Justice another chance but we dont
want him on the bench for the Constitutional time frame until s/he
has improved their Judicial temperament and approval rating.

Page 17 of 26 PROPOSED AMENDMENTS FOR COLORADO HOUSE BILL 2017-1303

Presented by FACEUS, TRANSPARENT COURTS & thousands of pro-se litigants across the state of
Colorado
 AMENDMENT 10
RETENTION ELECTION
CYCLES
JUDICIAL RETENTION ELECTIONS SHALL BE HELD IN
ODD YEARS BY ELECTRONIC BALLOT

THE BLUE BOOK FOR JUDICIAL RETENTION WILL BE

VIA THE NET ONLY. MAIL AND PHONE BLUE BOOK WILL BE
AVAILABLE UPON REQUEST.

NO FUNDS BY THE COMMISSIONS SHALL BE

EXPENDED FOR ANY TYPE OF EDUCATION OR
CAMPAIGNING 120 DAYS BEFORE ANY ELECTION

REASONS:
AS WAS NOTED IN THE COMMITTEE HEARING, BY THE
TIME THAT VOTERS GET TO THE JUDGES THEY HAVE
BALLOT BURN OUT. HAVING THEM IN ODD NUMBER YEARS
WILL PUT THEM BY THEMSELVES AND HAVING ELECTRONIC
VOTING SHOULD INCREASE VOTER TURNOUT
DRAMATICALLY AT THE SAME TIME SUBSTANTIALLY
REDUCING ELECTION COSTS.
WE DONT BELIEVE THAT THE COMMISSION SHOULD
BE PROMOTING THEIR OWN RETENTION
RECOMMENDATIONS.

Page 18 of 26 PROPOSED AMENDMENTS FOR COLORADO HOUSE BILL 2017-1303

Presented by FACEUS, TRANSPARENT COURTS & thousands of pro-se litigants across the state of
Colorado
 AMENDMENT 11
ACCOUNTABILITY
ANY PARTY FOUND TO VIOLATE ANY OF THE
PROVISIONS OF THIS STATUTE SHALL BE GUILTY OF A
CLASS 5 FELONY AND SHALL BE PROSECUTED BY THE
ATTORNEY GENERAL OR DISTRICT ATTORNEY IN ANY
DISTRICT COURT OF THE STATE.
THERE SHALL BE NO PLEA BARGAINS IN ANY MATTER
CONCERNING VIOLATIONS OF JUDICIAL RETENTION
STATUTES.

REASONS:
Currently, violators of the statute face no repercussions for their
acts. Adding teeth will make those parties think twice before
trying such efforts under this bill. We cannot ever forget that this
bill frames the quality of our Judges/Justices and therefore frames
the quality of justice that we all receive. We have seen atrocities
under the current system that need to be eliminated by the
expulsion and prosecution of rogue actors.

Page 19 of 26 PROPOSED AMENDMENTS FOR COLORADO HOUSE BILL 2017-1303

Presented by FACEUS, TRANSPARENT COURTS & thousands of pro-se litigants across the state of
Colorado
 AMENDMENT 12
A COMPLAINT CAN BE
FILED WITH THE JUDICIAL
DISCIPLINE COMMITTEE
AT ANY TIME.
ANY INTERESTED PARTY TO A CASE MAY FILE A
COMPLAINT WITH THE JUDICIAL DISCIPLINE COMMITTEE AT
ANY TIME PREVIOUS TO THE ONE YEAR ANNIVERSAY DATE
AFTER THE CASE HAS BEEN COMPLETELY CLOSED.

ANY JUDGE OR JUSTICE THAT HAS VIOLATED A

PERSONS DUE PROCESS OF LAW AND OR CIVIL RIGHTS
SHALL BE CONSIDERED IN VIOLATION OF THIS STATUTE
AND SHALL BE INVESTIGATED BY THE JUDICIAL DISCIPLINE
COMMISSION.

EVERY COMPLAINT TO THE JUDICIAL DISCIPLINE

COMMISSION SHALL BE FORTHWITH DELIVERED TO THE
COMMISSIONERS WHO WILL PROMPTLY DECIDE BY A
MAJORITY PUBLIC VOTE IF THE RESPECTIVE JUDGES ACTS
NEED INVESTIGATION AND DISCIPLINE.

Page 20 of 26 PROPOSED AMENDMENTS FOR COLORADO HOUSE BILL 2017-1303

Presented by FACEUS, TRANSPARENT COURTS & thousands of pro-se litigants across the state of
Colorado
 ALL RECORDS OF THE JUDICIAL DISCIPLINE
COMMISSION FOR A RESPECTIVE JUDGE SHALL BE
SUBMITTED TO THE JUDICIAL PERFORMANCE COMMISSION
TO USE IN ITS RETENTION OR NON-RETENTION
RECOMMENDATIONS OF A RESPECTIVE JUDGE.

A JUDGES DISCIPLINE RECORD MUST BE PUBLISHED

IN THE RECOMMENDATION OF EVERY DISTRICT AND STATE
BLUE BOOK OF ANY JUDGE/JUSTICE FACING RETENTION.

A DISCIPLINARY ACTION THAT HAS BEEN STARTED

AGAINST ANY JUDGE OR JUSTICE SHALL CONTINUE EVEN
IF THE JUDGE OR JUSTICE HAS RETIRED OR LEFT HIS
OFFICE FOR ANY REASON.

ANY JUDGE THAT HAS ANY DISCIPLINARY ACTION

AGAINST HIM OR HER SHALL NOT BE HIRED FOR SENIOR
JUDGE STATUS.

REASONS:
We receive complaints across the State of Colorado
about Judges [and also Justices] that have abused pro-se
litigants because those Judges know that there is no
accountability. We know that if the Judges and Justices
were made accountable for their actions and the system
made completely transparent; many issues across the
court spectrum of cases would diminish substantially. As
we have stated before; we believe that 90-95% of all
Colorado Judges have the best interests of the litigants
before them. But those percentages are not high enough.
Page 21 of 26 PROPOSED AMENDMENTS FOR COLORADO HOUSE BILL 2017-1303
Presented by FACEUS, TRANSPARENT COURTS & thousands of pro-se litigants across the state of
Colorado
Every person needs a fair redress of their complaint and it
is the responsibility of the Judicial Performance
Commission, the Judicial Discipline Commission and the
Colorado Supreme Court to enforce rules and provisions
to obtain 100% compliance so that confidence is again
instilled in the Judiciary.

AMENDMENT 13
SENIOR JUDGES
SENIOR JUDGES SHALL FACE RETENTION EVERY TWO
YEARS.
NO SENIOR JUDGE MAY BE ON THE BENCH MORE
THAN 60 DAYS IN ANY ONE YEAR.
ANY SENIOR JUDGE OVER THE AGE OF 75 MUST
RETIRE.
ANY PERSON WHO HAS BEEN APPOINTED A SENIOR
JUDGE FOR HIS OR HER CASE MAY REQUEST A NON-
SENIOR JUDGE INSTEAD. SUCH REQUEST SHALL NOT BE
DENIED.

REASONS:
Fees charged by the Judiciary are substantial and
therefore the litigants are entitled to have Judges that are
fully cognizant in their Judicial Actions.
We currently have Judges on the Appellate Court that are
over 84 years old and working over 60 days a year
through a loophole created in the rules. No disrespect,
but litigants are entitled to judges with ages within the
framework of our Constitution, i.e.72 years old. We
understand the necessity of Senior Judges as pointed out
Page 22 of 26 PROPOSED AMENDMENTS FOR COLORADO HOUSE BILL 2017-1303
Presented by FACEUS, TRANSPARENT COURTS & thousands of pro-se litigants across the state of
Colorado
by Judge Samour to help out in emergency situations and
therefore would agree that Senior Judges must retire over
the age of 75 years old.

Page 23 of 26 PROPOSED AMENDMENTS FOR COLORADO HOUSE BILL 2017-1303

Presented by FACEUS, TRANSPARENT COURTS & thousands of pro-se litigants across the state of
Colorado
 AMENDMENT 13
FINANCIAL DISCLOSURE
EVERY JUDGE AND JUSTICE SHALL HAVE A FINANCIAL
DISCLOSURE STATEMENT ON FILE WITH THE STATE OR
RESPECTIVE DISTRICT JUDICIAL PERFORMANCE
COMMISSION WHICH WILL BE CONSIDERED WHEN
RECOMMENDING RETENTION.

EVERY JUDGE AND JUSTICE WILL RESPOND TO

QUESTIONS POSED BY RESPECTIVE COMMISSIONERS TO
FINANCIAL RECORDS SUBMITTED.

THERE MUST BE NO RETENTION OF ANY JUDGE OR

JUSTICE WHO DOES NOT SUBMIT A TIMELY, COMPLETE
FINANCIAL DISCLOSURE AND CONTAINS A NOTARY
SIGNATURE OF THE RESPECTIVE JUDGE OR JUSTICE.

ANY MEMBER OF THE JUDICIARY HAS THE

RESPONSIBILITY AND MUST REPORT ANY SUSPICIOUS
FINANCIAL TRANSACTIONS OF ANY JUSTICE OR JUDGE TO
THE JUDICIAL PERFORMANCE COMMISSION WHO WILL
PRELIMINARILY INVESTIGATE AND IF FOUND CREDIBLE,
WILL IMMEDIATELY SEND TO THE STATE AUDITOR FOR A
FULL AUDIT OF THE RESPECTIVE JUDGES OR JUSTICES
FINANCIAL AFFAIRS WHICH, IF IMPROPRIETIES ARE
DISCOVERED SHALL BE PROSECUTED AS FRAUD UPON
THE COURT TO THE FULLEST EXTENT OF THE LAW
WITHOUT ANY PLEA BARGAINS.

Page 24 of 26 PROPOSED AMENDMENTS FOR COLORADO HOUSE BILL 2017-1303

Presented by FACEUS, TRANSPARENT COURTS & thousands of pro-se litigants across the state of
Colorado
 ANY JUDGE OR JUSTICE FOUND TO HAVE
INAPROPROPRIATELY RECEIVED ANY PROPERTY, GIFTS,
FUNDS, STOCKS, OR ANY OTHER FINANCIAL GAINS FROM
ANY SOURCE SHALL IMMEDIATELY HAVE HIS LAW LICENSE
SUSPENDED TO PRACTICE LAW IN COLORADO; AND ANY
CASE WHERE SUCH IMPROPER ACTS MAY HAVE
HAPPENED WILL BE TREATED AS FRAUD ON THE COURT
AND THE JUDGE OR JUSTICE WILL BECOME PERSONALLY
RESPONSIBLE TO ALL PARTIES FOR THEIR ACTS.

REASONS:
While we understand that no person wants to divulge their
financials; we believe that any person in the position of our
Judges and Justices who have complete control over civil litigants
lives where copious amounts of money are involved, must submit
to financial disclosure. We know that there is under the table
money being implemented in Colorado as has been proven in
other states in recent months. [See Nevada where 6 attorneys
were indicted by a grand jury for fraudulent financial transactions
with client monies and the investigation is being expanded now to
Judges]
Pro-se civil litigants dont have the acumen or knowledge to
track these bad actors; so as Judge Samour pointed out, they
must be filtered out so that the end product is the best, most
transparent, most accountable Judicial branch in the country.

Page 25 of 26 PROPOSED AMENDMENTS FOR COLORADO HOUSE BILL 2017-1303

Presented by FACEUS, TRANSPARENT COURTS & thousands of pro-se litigants across the state of
Colorado
Thank you for considering our proposed amendments to HB17-
1303,

/s/Peter Coulter
/s/Luanne Fleming
/s/Robin Austin
/s/Ruth Sadler
/s/Cliff Battista
And thousands of pro-se litigants across the State of Colorado

Page 26 of 26 PROPOSED AMENDMENTS FOR COLORADO HOUSE BILL 2017-1303

Presented by FACEUS, TRANSPARENT COURTS & thousands of pro-se litigants across the state of
Colorado