« Sarah Palin In Town Tomorrow | Main | Sarah Palin Channels Ronald Reagan »

October 20, 2008



I would request that you reconsider your recommendation on Judge Ronald G. Crowder, 4th District, El Paso County. In a recent civil decision, he allowed a woman to come back 14 years later and reopen a closed divorce settlement to get additional property benefits that did not exist at the time of the divorce, in complete violation of Rules 59 and 60 of the Colorado Rules of Civil Procedure, and in direct violation of long standing case law and public policy. The court transcript shows that he clearly overstepped his judicial authority, ignoring all written law and facts and based his decision solely on his own personal experience and prejudices. What little law he managed to cite was incorrectly interpreted. Furthermore, Crowder also attempted to overstep his authority in an earlier criminal case. In that instance, he tried to force a DA to plea bargain; which was cited in an April 2007 article by Dennis Huspeni of the Colorado Springs Gazette. The civil case is in appeal and scheduled for oral argument on November 4, 2008. If Crowder's ruling is allowed to stand, no divorce case in Colorado will ever be final. His inability to render an impartial judgment based on LAW hardly makes him worthy of a "retention recommendation."

(I can provide the transcript).

a watcher

The method I suggested isn't perfect. It would not have selected Judge Larry Schwartz for a non retention recommendation in 2006. Schwartz was the judge in my lawsuit who couldn't seem to enforce any rules. His lawyer scores are so high that this method would have resulted in a "superstar" rating.

While the system I suggested won't select out all bad judges, it is better than trusting a completely untrustworthy 4th Judicial District Judicial Performance Commission that is guided by a state commission predisposed to protecting bad judges.

Make sure you report what he did to the local judicial performance commission next cycle. By then, my guess is that the system will be more inclined to weed out the obvious stinkers.

Also, drop me an email, please. We can have coffee.


Hi. Just wanted to say thank you for taking the time to post this. I found it online. I recently moved to Colorado from California. I wanted to vote responsibly, and you've certainly helped me do that. I appreciate your time and the method by which you choose to determine your ratings. It was more impartial, which allowed me to trust the data more readily.

Mynoa Williams

I want to vote responsibly. I have tried to find out info on judges. Does anyone know anything about Bernard, Fuman, Hawthorne, Jones, Roman or Terry of the CO Court of Appeals?
I want to get my absentee ballot in as soon as possible.
Thanks for your time, interest and knowledge. Mynoa Williams

a watcher

For this year, I am suggesting (out of total ignorance) that you vote to retain them all. I may be totally mistaken to do this, but I am operating on the do no harm theory.

Two years from now I will have better information.


I have done extensive searching, I can't find a thing about Judges Terry and Roman. The others have at least published opinions so you can get an idea of how they rule, but it tedious and time consuming to wade through the information. These sites list Opinions of the Court, but I still could not find a thing about Terry and Roman.

Rood Luck Rick



A watcher - Thanks for the informative post.

A better "do no harm approach" would probably to not vote on cases where you have no information rather than vote to retain.

a watcher

Unfortunately there is at least one blog suggesting that folks vote not to retain solely on a partisan basis. I'd like to see a non partisan system that really worked, which is why the methodology suggested here doesn't look at party affiliation.

Bad judges usually don't check the party affiliation of the litigants they damage. The judge who worked me over shares my party affiliation (I'll be writing about what happened on the day after the election), but shouldn't be on the bench.

In this situation, I think that to do no harm is to vote to retain, but that is not to say that your suggestion is wrong. In a perfect world, you would be correct.

I've done some rethinking about Judge Crowder. When the whole nonlawyer contingent thinks him a bad judge, he shouldn't be retained. Next time I do this post, I will change that kind of recommendation.


Do not know what your issues with Justice Eid may have been. I'm finding it difficult to find sufficient information for an informed vote on most judges. BUT - Justice Eid was the only member of the Supreme Court sufficiently sane to dissent from the decision that Telluride could use eminent domain to condemn private property OUTSIDE its own territory for any purpose it dreamed up, contrary to law and contrary to the specific purposes enumerated in the constitution. All the other justices need to be removed.

a watcher

Justice Eid is the most sane of the lot. Not sure how you came to the conclusion I was uncomfortable with her. Hobbs is a problem. Some folks I know and respect are suggesting he not be retained, but others I know and respect are of the opposite opinion.

In two years some real ringers will be up, and they won't get this kind of recommendation.


I am happy to report the Colorado Court of Appeals OVERTURNED Judge Ronald G. Crowder's *September 5, 2007 Order(4th District, El Paso County) allowing an ex-wife to come back 14 years later to reopen a closed divorce settlement to demand additional property benefits that did not exist at the time of divorce--in COMPLETE violation of long standing Colorado Statutes and Colorado case law.

The appeal decision (Case #07CA2295) stated: "[w]ife has established no basis in this case under C.R.C.P. 60 or otherwise, for relief from a final decree. The order permitting wife to obtain life insurance on husband's life and requiring husband to cooperate in helping wife obtain that insurance is reversed."

*See Order and Transcript at: http://www.dvmen.org/dv-79.htm

The comments to this entry are closed.

About This Site

  • Copyright Notice
    We had a little problem with a new site that published our material as though it was theirs omitting only the links. All items on this blog copyright a watcher on the date published. Fair use exerpting is authorized and encouraged with links back to the original essay.
  • email address
    Avoiding the harvesters: We do have a tipline, so that's a start. At thecoloradoindex, of course, followed by the typical dot com. Sorry to be cryptic, but we've already been bit by spam city and our address only appeared on the net once.
  • Hints and Rules
    One goal of this site is to help Republicans write essays that are as effective as possible, and by that we mean essays have search engine sticking power. Bloggers may wish to look at the Hints and Rules category from time to time.
  • TheColoradoIndex
    A site that promotes other Colorado Republican writers with links. The site also publishes essays that Democrats and their media fans might find unfriendly, but fair. Sometimes substantially identical essays will be written about individual Democrats who participated in a group event. The purpose is not to bore readers but to have individualized searchable essays that will call as much attention to that one individual's actions against the public interest as possible.