Continuing from the Palmer case ante:

Only by strict adherence to this principle are we assured of the perpetuity of the guaranties of the Constitution in the equal administration of the laws where there are many judges of differing degrees of education, age, experience and background.  Id. @ ¶ 23.

To insure the permanence of our free institutions all judicial officers must conform with the criteria established by the organic law.  Id. @ ¶ 24.

No individual or public official is above, beyond or exempt from the mandates of the Constitutions, state and federal. If  judicial officers do not abide by their solemn pledge to protect and defend the Constitution, as well as to observe the limitations prescribed thereby, we must expect from the average citizen only contempt for our most cherished institutions and legal concepts. If such event should occur the inevitable result will be decay of the republic, and government by men ‑‑ not law ‑‑ will result. Then, democracy will be abased and totalitarianism will drench the land. If the constitutional guaranties are wrong, let the people change them ‑‑ not judges or legislators. Two wrongs cannot make a right.  Id. @  ¶ 25.

History has demonstrated beyond a doubt that such a guaranty as is set forth in Article I, Section 6, of the Constitution is necessary for the protection of the citizen, and that it should be preserved at all hazards. Any judicial official who refuses to give his loyalty to

this ideal because of his feeling of revulsion at the nature of the offense charged against the accused either does not conceive the doctrine in its full meaning or he profanes the hallowed words of the patriots who convened in Philadelphia in 1787.   Id. @ ¶ 26.

These last few paragraphs from the Palmer case convey how I feel, and how I think that this Court should feel, about Judge DS’s willful failure to follow rules that the people of Colorado have authorized this Court to make governing his conduct and assuring parties in his court of due process.

In People v. Hively,  344 P.2d 443 (Colo. 1959) this Court said the following which is easily adapted to the actions of Judge DS in the case sub judice:

The [Constitutional provisions] under which [C.R.C.P. 97] was imposed, [was put in place after much consideration by the Colorado Supreme Court] under [ authority granted It to do so in Article VI § 21 of the Colorado] constitution, * * * became, by its own intrinsic force, the law to you, to every other [judicial] officer in the State, and [serves as a guide] to all the people [respecting what they should expect from Colorado courts]. You assumed the responsibility of declaring the [rule not applicable to you], and at once determined to disregard it, to set up your own judgment as superior to the expressed will of  the [Colorado Supreme Court], asserting, in fact, an entire independence thereof. This is the first case in our judicial history, in which a [judicial] officer has taken upon himself the responsibility of nullifying [a rule] of the [Colorado Supreme Court respecting the administration of a district court] ‑‑ of arresting its operation ‑‑ of disobeying its behests, and placing his own judgment above [Colorado Supreme Court judicial] authority expressed in the form of [a rule].  Id. @ ¶ 43.

Hively goes on to say, again in adapted form:

To the law every [judge] owes homage, ‘the very least as needing its care, the greatest as not exempted from its power.’ To allow a [district court judge] to decide upon the validity of a [rule], would be subversive of the great objects and purposes of [judiciary], for if one such [judicial] officer may assume infallibility, all other like [judicial] officers may do the same, and thus an end be put to civil government, one of whose cardinal principles is, subjection to the laws.  Id. @ ¶ 44.

Being a [judicial] officer, the path of duty was plain before [Judge DS]. [Judge DS] strayed from it, and became a volunteer in the effort to arrest the law, and it was successful. Had the [Colorado Supreme Court], who [made Rule 97], considered the law [not applicable to Judge DS], they could, in the [proper format], have [issued a ruling that Judge DS was exempt from Rule 97], and it was their undoubted right so to do. Your only duty was obedience. The collected will of the [Colorado Supreme Court] was embodied in that [rule]. A decent respect to them required that all [Colorado judges] should obey it.  Id. @ ¶ 45.

18-8-404 C.R.S. makes Judge DS’s failure to follow a rule related to the performance of his duties, in order to maliciously cause me the harm of not having  my appeal heard, respecting a conviction upon which almost a year of straight time in jail hangs in the balance, a class 2 misdemeanor.

In People v. Senn, 824 P.2d 822 (Colo. 1992), an attorney discipline decision, I found the following:

It is preeminently the business of the criminal Justice system to punish violations of the laws. While the respondent’s misconduct did not directly arise from the practice of law, disciplinary proceedings supplement the work of the criminal courts to maintain respect for the rule of law and protect the public. See In re Curran, 801 P.2d 962, 973 (Wash. 1990). The respondent’s conduct on the morning of September 14 was the result of a very critical failure of judgment and we believe it evinced a contempt for the law which was at odds with the respondent’s duty to uphold  law.   Id. @ ¶ 29.

In the Senn case, the respondent was disciplined for a general contempt for the law.  How much the more should Judge DS be disciplined for a specific contempt for rules promulgated by this Court.

Colorado Constitution Article VI Section 2 gives this Court “general superintending control over all inferior courts, under such regulations and limitations as may be prescribed by law.”

Based upon the above facts and authority this Court should issue a show cause order to the proposed respondent ordering him to show cause why he should not be held in contempt of this Court.

LIST OF SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS:

1.  Motion for Substitution of Judge

2.  Motion for Court to do Things in the Right Order

3.  Order of Dismissal

Thank you,

Order my contempt treatise and package here.

• Colorado Supreme Court Asked to Hold Trial Judge in Contempt-The Outcome
• Colorado Supreme Court Asked to Hold Trial Judge in Contempt Part 3
• Colorado Supreme Court Asked to Hold Trial Judge in Contempt Part 2
• Colorado Supreme Court Asked to Hold Trial Judge in Contempt
• What Did This Willful Failure to File Defendant Do Right?
• Know of Any IRS Agents Involved in Willful Oppression?
• Can A Lack of Express Finding in an Order Render It Void?
• When Must a Trial Judge Disqualify Himself?
• When May a Court Take Judicial Notice?
• Fort Lauderdale DUI