In Defense Of Bill Ritter

Well, not really.

This week the Denver Post sued Bill Ritter's office to get his private phone records.  It seems that he doesn't use his publicly funded phone for government business, or at least, doesn't use it much.

The Denver Post today sued Gov. Bill Ritter following the governor's refusal to turn over 18 months of cellular phone records that would show some of who Ritter has called and been called by since taking office in 2007.

The newspaper claims that it is entitled to a list of calls made and received by Ritter during the 18 months related to his work as governor.

Ritter only occasionally uses his state-issued cellular phone, but carries a second cell phone not provided by taxpayers. The governor's office has refused to allow Post reporters to see the itemized bills for that phone, arguing that it would invade the governor's privacy.

One of the many letters that I have written in the last month, but not yet mailed, is to Dean Singleton.  His paper wants to be able to use the legal system, and wants it to work when he uses it, but only sporadically cares if it works for others.

I listed the following examples of that paper's indifference:

1.)    Your coverage of the handling of the Manzanaras story stopped cold when it became obvious that the State Court Administrator had tried to steer a felony charge to Judicial Discipline which had the power to issue a secret written reprimand at most.  There is a strong feeling among those of us who have tried to use the system that it is designed to protect judges and lawyers from legitimate complaints by litigants.  When a story surfaces that a court official is willing to use the system to protect a judge, the real story isn’t who gets prosecuted, it is whether anyone in the court believes the system works at all, or that it should work.  Your paper’s decision to stop covering the story at that point was a message to the court system that the more outrageously they act, the more silent and compliant you will be.

2.)    This year, Bill Ritter appointed a former judge to Judicial Discipline in a slot reserved for lawyers.  There are effectively five judges on a panel of ten, when six votes are required to recommend punishment of a judge.  That can’t be claimed to be good government, designed to instill confidence that the system is designed to protect the public, and yet your paper was silent.

3.)    In 2006, your paper hyped the pre-election “show” trial by Attorney Regulation of Carol Chambers.  Depending on your political persuasion, it was great politics but sick government.  Attorney Regulation is not funded by the legislature and it won’t investigate or prosecute most lawyer behavior, claiming not to have jurisdiction.  It conceals what it does and doesn’t do by being a “paperless office.”  When I tried to use it to stop misconduct against me, I got the lack of jurisdiction run-around.  Let a lawyer make a complaint against another lawyer and the system goes into high profile mode.  That office functions exactly as you would expect a union disciplinary office to function, but your paper doesn’t seem to see that.

4.)    Attorney Regulation helps administer the Supreme Court fund that supposedly reimburses a very limited class of clients who had money stolen from them.  Only very small claims are paid in full.  One woman who had over a half million dollars stolen got back $100,000.  This fund is protected from lawsuit by a Supreme Court edict, so the fund does not need to operate in a fiducarily responsible way, and does not.  Your paper routinely reports uncritically the Attorney Regulation propaganda that clients who get reimbursed are getting money out of the goodness of the hearts of other lawyers.  Why not ask why attorneys who handle client money be required to get an insurance that will reimburse these victims in full, but no paper seems to have thought of that.

5.)    Several years ago, the Post published a story about the use of private judges when district judges wouldn’t make timely rulings.  Your paper didn’t name the judges who wouldn’t make the timely rulings and did not include in your report the two state laws which set time limits for rulings and provide for a penalty for judges who don’t meet that standard.

All that Bill Ritter needs to do is to have his attorney go into slow motion response mode.  It took me five years to get partial discovery, after which I was told that nothing more existed, including records the Defendant would have needed to respond to even the mildest kind of IRS inquiry.

Heck, Ritter can be well into his second term before this is resolved, if he hires the right lawyer.