TO ZACH WILLIS, JAMES SWEARINGEN, KIRK JONES; IAALS ARE JUDGES PAID TO TELL THE TRUTH? Unless I am missing something, IAALS started in about 2018 recognizing failures in access to justice and administration of justice, and claiming now is the time for change. About 16 years later IAALS is still claiming there is an urgent need, and now is time for change. Wouldn't this indicate your mission has basically been a failure? You are claiming 'judges need to be agents of change', but the only thing judges do is defend other judges. Can you give an example of: 1. A Colorado judge being an agent of change? 2. Any meaningful progress you have made in terms of street level administration of justice? 3. Any innovative solution that has resulted in any judge doing anything different than they usually do? 4. Any real-world solution adopted by a decision maker, e.g. any judge, or any judicial committee of the Colorado Supreme Court? 5. Any example of you questioning the status quo of any judicial decision, listening to litigants and craft solutions that transform our civil justice system? I have provided some opportunities for you question the status quo, and implement solutions to transform civil justice, and you have ignored all of them. Attached is an opportunity to question the status quo and transform civil justice for once and for all; Amicus my motion asking the Colorado SC to discuss whether judges are paid to tell the truth.

I contacted Jordan Singer New England Law, on the IAALS task force that allegedly does this: The JPE 2.0 Task Force is comprised of knowledgeable, experienced judicial performance evaluation (JPE) administrators and experts from across the United States. The Task Force meets regularly to discuss research on existing JPE programs, identify topics meriting further study and/or outreach, and plan the next steps for the broader discussion and implementation of ideas related to modernizing and improving JPE programs. Learn more about our JPE 2.0 project. Today, JPE programs continue to focus on the right goal of holding judges accountable for job performance based on politically neutral qualities like impartiality, transparency and consistency rather than their rulings in cases. However, updating evaluation methods is essential to keeping JPE relevant and useful. Current JPE processes no longer fully capture the experience of modern court users, the needs of modern judges, or the expectations of modern voters. IAALS’ JPE 2.0 project will help JPE programs update their approaches to reflect modern realities, while remaining accurate, trusted, and relevant. Singer said he really didn't have anything to do with IAALS and he didn't know who at IAALS would address the question of 'Are judges paid to tell the truth.' So, SInger and Kent Wagner are on a task force to hold judges accountable, and Kent Wagner refuses to comment on judicial performance violations and gives me false information about the judicial performance statute, and Singer on the same task force claims no role in holding judges accountable? Is this what IAALS calls accurate, trusted, relevant, and transparent, or did they simply post Wagner and Singer on their webpage to fluff up their allegation that IAALS has broad support and involvement throughout the judiciary?

WHO HAS BETTER JUDICIAL REFORM IDEAS; ME OR IAALS? ME: NEVER TAKEN AND COURSE IN LAW IAALS: THINK TANK OF THE TOP LEGAL MINDS IN THE NATION LET'S DO A SIDE BY SIDE IAALS: We're identifying innovations that make the court system easier to navigate for everyone, while also helping courts increase efficiency, reduce procedural complexity, and make the most of the often-limited resources they have. We we need strong leaders who will not only respond to existing challenges but also design a better system that anticipates and prepares for future needs. ME: All court orders must stand on their own, crafted with a dedication to truth and evidence that would convince a jury. You can't convince a jury with allegations; thus all court orders must attempt to present a level of rationale and evidence that would stand up to jury scrutiny. IAALS: IAALS is focused on improving how our system serves people today, while also anticipating and preparing for future needs jumpstarting the groundbreaking and achievable solutions that will clear a path to justice for us all. In order to make any meaningful strides in access to justice and public trust and confidence, changes must not only have judicial buy-in but must also feature input and leadership from those most intimately familiar with the way the system works. Judges are on the front lines, witnessing firsthand the challenges faced by everyday people entangled in the legal system. ME: Judges are paid to tell the truth, as as such must answer questions presented by litigants, directly, accurately, and promptly. We can't be claiming transparency to the legislature and then having a double standard in practice of 'litigants have to tell the truth, judges and lawyers don't.' Any refusal by any judicial officer to directly answer a relevant question by a litigant or member of the public receives a warning in their public personnel file. 2 warnings in a year result in 2 months loss of salary and mandated hearing before the performance commission. 4 warnings in two years or less results in termination. IAALS: Our solutions cascade from IAALS to the millions who benefit nationwide. In the legal system legal problems and the justice journeys that people experience, people feel negative emotions, negative impact on mental health, loss of money, loss of time, and negative impact on financial well-being. ME: There is a timeline, statute of limitations, that require timely filing of any pleadings. There should also be a required timeline for judicial orders; we can't have 3 appeal judges taking 9 months to issue a 3-page opinion as in my appeal to Grove/Furman/Yun. The time to issue a judicial order is calculated upon the number of single-spaced pages of pleadings the court has to review. If each party submits 4 pages single space, totaling 8 pages, the judicial order must be issued in 8 days. Any judge who can't analyze a single page of text in one day should get a job where efficiency isn't a requirement. IAALS: By looking into the data in these and other areas in a targeted way, we can target reforms to have greater impact. One of the key goals of this study is to provide the data needed for policymakers and providers of justice services to help prevent legal problems from occurring in the first place, and to help them resolve those that do occur in a fair and effective way. We look forward to the opportunity to support strong judicial leaders in their efforts to innovate toward a justice system that works well for everyone. We also need innovation. We know from the data that innovation is already happening, and that people are taking advantage of innovations in justice services-both formal and informal-to meet their justice needs in doing so, close the justice gap and achieve user-friendly justice for all. ME: All court orders must include a clause attempting to discern and comply with the legislative intent in the governing statute, a clause verifying court efforts at plain and speedy justice, and a clause stating what the judge feels constitutes the best administration of justice all factors considered. Recent court orders in direct violation of this basic standards of ethics; COA judges Grove, Yun, Furman, made no mention of the legislative intent in the governing statute, in fact even failed to even mention the governing statute, and took 9 months to issue a 3-page opinion that, while ignoring the clear legislative directive, was really concerned that I didn't have a table of contents.

NOW LET’S CHECK OUT THE EXPERT OPINION FROM DIRECTOR BRITTANY KAUFMAN Clear evidence of an access to justice crisis in the United States Access to justice is a problem that is impacting people from all walks of life, with serious social, legal, economic, and political consequences. [It effects lots of people from different walks of life? Impressive.] The justice crisis negatively impacts lives This study highlights the wide range of consequences that result from these legal problems and the justice journeys that people experience, such as negative emotions, negative impact on mental health, loss of money, loss of time, and negative impact on financial well-being. [Failure to administer justice can have emotional and financial impacts? I wonder how long it took Brittany to figure that out.] There are many different paths to justice People in the United States pursue many informal and formal strategies for resolving their legal problems. [OK, people use negation and formal court proceedings to resolve conflicts. Pretty sure every 9th grader already knows that.] By looking into the data in these and other areas in a targeted way, we can target reforms to have greater impact. [Brittany wants to target reforms on problem areas. Again, impressive.] One of the key goals of this study is to provide the data needed for policymakers and providers of justice services to help prevent legal problems from occurring in the first place, and to help them resolve those that do occur in a fair and effective way. In addition to continuing to analyze the data with an eye toward reform, we will launch a data dashboard this fall to provide others with even greater access to this data and its various segments. [A fair and effective way? I am sure no one has thought of that before.] We also need innovation. We know from the data that innovation is already happening, and that people are taking advantage of innovations in justice services-both formal and informal-to meet their justice needs in doing so, close the justice gap and achieve user-friendly justice for all. [Can we see some of this innovation IAALS is claiming to be the source of? Like a single case where anything IAALS has done has positively influenced the administration of justice by any judge?

IAALS, A SELF PROCLAIMED THINK TANK OF THE BEST LEGAL MINDS IN THE NATION At IAALS, we’re identifying innovations that make the court system easier to navigate for everyone, while also helping courts increase efficiency, reduce procedural complexity, and make the most of the often limited resources they have. Our nonpartisan, independent approach cuts through the noise that consumes our modern society and empowers data-backed, people-centered innovations that are taking hold in courts, in law schools, and within the legal profession across the country. IAALS is focused on improving how our system serves people today, while also anticipating and preparing for future needs. From idea to impact-from one to many-IAALS is jumpstarting the groundbreaking and achievable solutions that will clear a path to justice for us all. In our 2023 Annual Report, we highlight how our work centers the people and how our solutions cascade from IAALS to the millions who benefit nationwide. You are at the heart of our success. Our partners and collaborators power our solutions and empower the changemakers who bring them to life. Together, we are creating the future of civil justice. Let’s check out how they cut through the noise for improved civil justice for all with a cascade of impact and innovation with a couple of their Expert Opinions to benefit millions. [BTW does IAALS have any data that any of their innovations have benefited even a single person in a single court case, e.g. a statement from a judge like ‘I decided to do X on the recommendation of IAALS’? EXPERT OPINION BY DANIELLE KALIL The last few years have highlighted this critical need to improve our justice system. We have a long way to go to meet the needs of system users. It is clearer than ever that we need sweeping transformation from the status quo. In order to bring about that kind of transformation, we need strong leaders who will not only respond to existing challenges but also design a better system that anticipates and prepares for future needs. [They need strong leaders to build a better system? This is seriously an expert opinion.] Sustainable innovation requires broad collaboration by diverse stakeholders and justice system users. Among these stakeholders, judges hold a uniquely powerful position that makes strong judicial leadership a core component of meaningful innovation. [Again with the strong leadership and meaningful change. This will clearly move us forward from the prior dedication to weak leadership and meaningless change.] In order to make any meaningful strides in access to justice and public trust and confidence, changes must not only have judicial buy-in but must also feature input and leadership from those most intimately familiar with the way the system works. Judges are on the front lines, witnessing firsthand the challenges faced by everyday people entangled in the legal system. They see the bottlenecks, inefficiencies, and disparities that can turn what should be a simple dispute into a life-altering and all-consuming ordeal. They have deep knowledge of the legal system’s nuances, limitations, and complexities. This expertise makes them well-positioned to bring about reform. [Ok so people who work in the legal system, judges, are in a position to have expertise and deep knowledge in the legal system? This is definitely pushing the boundaries into novel innovation with much needed expert commentary.]