On April 26,2012, Colorado Appellate Judges Bernard, Loeb and Lichenstein issued a Decision in Case no 11CA0930; Gleason v. Judicial Watch Inc. (attached) In that decision, which was later upheld by the Colorado Supreme Court, en banc, the Colorado Open Records Act was self-exempted by the Judiciary in a serious trespass of the Latin phrase; Nemo Iudex In Causa Sua.
Wikipedia describes its’ importance as follows:
Nemo judex in causa sua (or nemo judex in sua causa) is a Latin phrase that means, literally, no-one should be a judge in his own cause. It is a principle of natural justice that no person can judge a case in which they have an interest.[1] The rule is very strictly applied to any appearance of a possible bias, even if there is actually none: "Justice must not only be done, but must be seen to be done".
The legal effect of a breach of natural justice is normally to stop the proceedings and render any judgment invalid; it should be quashed or appealed, but may be remitted for a valid re-hearing.
Further, in self-exempting themselves out of CORA through making this decision, several violations of the Colorado Code of Judicial Conduct Occurred:
Rule 1.2: Promoting Confidence in the Judiciary
A judge shall act at all times in a manner that promotes public confidence in the independence,* integrity,* and impartiality* of the judiciary, and shall avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety.
Comment:
[1] Public confidence in the judiciary is eroded by improper conduct and conduct that creates the appearance of impropriety. This principle applies to both the professional and personal conduct of a judge. [2] A judge should expect to be the subject of public scrutiny that might be viewed as burdensome if applied to other citizens, and must accept the restrictions imposed by the Code. [3] Conduct that compromises or appears to compromise the independence, integrity, and impartiality of a judge undermines public confidence in the judiciary. Because it is not practicable to list all such conduct, the Rule is necessarily cast in general terms. [4] Judges should participate in activities that promote ethical conduct among judges and lawyers, support professionalism within the judiciary and the legal profession, and promote access to justice for all. [5] Impropriety occurs when the conduct compromises the ability of the judge to carry out judicial responsibilities with integrity, impartiality and competence. Actual improprieties include violations of law, court rules or provisions of this Code. The test for appearance of impropriety is whether the conduct would create in reasonable minds a perception that the judge violated this Code or engaged in other conduct that reflects adversely on the judge’s honesty, impartiality, temperament, or fitness to serve as a judge. [6] A judge should initiate and participate in community outreach activities for the purpose of promoting public understanding of and confidence in the administration of justice. In conducting such activities, the judge must act in a manner consistent with this Code.
Every Judge named has an interest in the outcome of the case and as such should have recused themselves from participating.
The judge should not serve on an inter agency oversight board which determines how to spend certain state funds where a new memorandum of understanding with the state on dispersal of the funds creates a financial incentive for the judge to reduce certain placements in his capacity as a judge in order to provide more funds for the oversight group. Service on the board would reflect adversely on the judge’s impartiality and could create an appearance of impropriety, and thus he should resign. Colo. J.E.A.B. Op. 10-02.
Colorado Supreme Court Reviews
On April 26,2012, Colorado Appellate Judges Bernard, Loeb and Lichenstein issued a Decision in Case no 11CA0930; Gleason v. Judicial Watch Inc. (attached) In that decision, which was later upheld by the Colorado Supreme Court, en banc, the Colorado Open Records Act was self-exempted by the Judiciary in a serious trespass of the Latin phrase; Nemo Iudex In Causa Sua.
Wikipedia describes its’ importance as follows:
Nemo judex in causa sua (or nemo judex in sua causa) is a Latin phrase that means, literally, no-one should be a judge in his own cause. It is a principle of natural justice that no person can judge a case in which they have an interest.[1] The rule is very strictly applied to any appearance of a possible bias, even if there is actually none: "Justice must not only be done, but must be seen to be done".
The legal effect of a breach of natural justice is normally to stop the proceedings and render any judgment invalid; it should be quashed or appealed, but may be remitted for a valid re-hearing.
Further, in self-exempting themselves out of CORA through making this decision, several violations of the Colorado Code of Judicial Conduct Occurred:
Rule 1.2: Promoting Confidence in the Judiciary
A judge shall act at all times in a manner that promotes public confidence in the independence,* integrity,* and impartiality* of the judiciary, and shall avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety.
Comment:
[1] Public confidence in the judiciary is eroded by improper conduct and conduct that creates the appearance of impropriety. This principle applies to both the professional and personal conduct of a judge. [2] A judge should expect to be the subject of public scrutiny that might be viewed as burdensome if applied to other citizens, and must accept the restrictions imposed by the Code. [3] Conduct that compromises or appears to compromise the independence, integrity, and impartiality of a judge undermines public confidence in the judiciary. Because it is not practicable to list all such conduct, the Rule is necessarily cast in general terms. [4] Judges should participate in activities that promote ethical conduct among judges and lawyers, support professionalism within the judiciary and the legal profession, and promote access to justice for all. [5] Impropriety occurs when the conduct compromises the ability of the judge to carry out judicial responsibilities with integrity, impartiality and competence. Actual improprieties include violations of law, court rules or provisions of this Code. The test for appearance of impropriety is whether the conduct would create in reasonable minds a perception that the judge violated this Code or engaged in other conduct that reflects adversely on the judge’s honesty, impartiality, temperament, or fitness to serve as a judge. [6] A judge should initiate and participate in community outreach activities for the purpose of promoting public understanding of and confidence in the administration of justice. In conducting such activities, the judge must act in a manner consistent with this Code.
Every Judge named has an interest in the outcome of the case and as such should have recused themselves from participating.
The judge should not serve on an inter agency oversight board which determines how to spend certain state funds where a new memorandum of understanding with the state on dispersal of the funds creates a financial incentive for the judge to reduce certain placements in his capacity as a judge in order to provide more funds for the oversight group. Service on the board would reflect adversely on the judge’s impartiality and could create an appearance of impropriety, and thus he should resign. Colo. J.E.A.B. Op. 10-02.