COPY DISTRICT COURT, LARIMER COUNTY, COLORADO 201 La Porte Ave. Suite 100 Ft. Collins, CO 80525 SUSAN HOLMES, Petitioner v. CSUPD Officer Phillip Morris Respondent Mule enURis ‘QUNTY COLORADO COURT USE ONLY ‘SUSAN HOLMES JHFoundation 2608 Leisure Dr. Fort Collins, CO 80525 Phone Number: 970-372-6522 Email: [email protected] Case No: 2020CV102 Division Courtroom 3a MOTION TO RECUSE JUDGE STEPHEN E. HOWARD Petitioner, Susan Holmes respectfully moves to recuse/disqualify Judge Stephen E. Howard from hearing any aspect of the above-entitled case for the following reasons stated in this Motion. This motion is filed pursuant to C.R.CP. 97, the Canons of Judicial Conduct, and state and federal constitutional guarantees to due process of law, equal protection of the law, and a fair hearing and trial. There is sufficient evidence to prove that Judge Howard is not an impartial or qualified judge in this case. 1. Judge Howard has demonstrated prejudice and bias towards the Petitioner in a previous case. Because of that prejudice, the Petitioner filed a Judicial Complaint documenting Judge Howard's discrimination, prejudice and lack of good faith. (See attached exhibits 1 and 2) IDF 78 RE/17 MOTION TOPrejudicial Behaviors Past and Current in Summary In a letter to Susan Holmes, dated June 11, 2019 Judge Howard (Exhibit 1) stated that: “Itis my responsibility as Chief Judge to determine the case assignments of the judges.” Judge Howard knowingly removed/replaced an unbiased Judge from my case, Susan Holmes versus Colorado State University (CSU), and transferred my case to Judge Julie Kunce Field whose household received monies from CSU. This fact was proven in my Judicial Complaints (see exhibit 2). It took weeks before Judge Field finally recused herself knowing that she violated judicial protocol by not notifying. In the same letter (Exhibit 1) Judge Howard also made a number of blatantly false statements (see quote below). Susan Holmes's case WAS about obtaining criminal justice records. Judge Howard did not seem to comprehend this basic fact or any facts in the case, yet the Chief Judge incorrectly & prejudicially stated an opinion in an open case. The prejudice towards Susan Holmes and her case by Judge Howard was overt and violated all rules of Judicial Conduct. “Your most recent e-mail to Ms. Brunin references CRS. § 24-72-305(7) as providing a right to a hearing at the earliest possible time on your claim of violation of due process. The statute you cite concerns access to criminal justice records and only provides for a hearing when a request for access to criminal justice records has been denied. There has been no request for any criminal justice records, nor does it appear that any criminal justice records are relevant to any of the concerns you have expressed. Therefore, there is no basis for a hearing.” Judge Howard, June 11, 2019 Judge Howard continues his overt prejudice and lack of good faith by assigning himself to this ERPO hearing where Susan Holmes is the Petitioner and the Respondent is a CSU Police Officer. Application of Law for Impartial Hearings 1. A judge should disqualify himself in a proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned, including but not limited to instances where he has a personal bias or prejudice. He may believe in his own fairness but has a duty to eliminate every semblance of reasonable doubt or suspicion that a fair and impartial trial or hearing may be denied. (Zoline v. Telluride Lodge Assn., 721 P.2d 635 (Colo. 1987). See also Johnson v. District Court, 674 P.2d 952, 956 ADF 76 REI? MOTIONTO(Colo. 1984). Also, “we have previously noted that basic to our system of justice is the precept that a judge must be free of all taint of bias and partiality” to secure confidence of litigants immediately involved and to retain public respect and secure willing and ready obedience of the judgment. People v. District Court, 192 Colo, 503, 507, 560 P.2d 828 , 831 (1977); Nordloh v. Packard, 45 Colo. 515, 521. 3. A reasonable question as to impartiality requires disqualification. (Wood Homes v. Ft. Collins, 670 P.2d 9 Colo. App. 1983). A reasonable inference of a “bent of mind” that prevents a judge from dealing fairly with a party seeking recusal requires disqualification. (Wright v. District Court, 731 P.2d 661 Colo. 1987). 4, Ajudge ruling on a motion to disqualify himself cannot pass on the truth of the statements of fact in the motion and supporting affidavit, but must accept statements of fact as true, The documents speak for themselves and, if legally adequate in reporting actual events and statements, compel disqualification. (Johnson, supra; also In re Goelmer, 770 P.2d 1387 Co. App. 1989). As stated in Hawkins, supra, citing People ex re. Burke v. District Court, 60 Colo. 1, 8-9 (1915): "The change of judge is conditioned not only upon actual fact of his prejudice, but upon the imputation of it...a judge can neither reject the pleading, nor disregard the facts alleged therein..the finding in such matter is a finding of law, and not of fact..(thus) the change must be made, and the truth of the matter shall not be open to question.” 5. Motions to disqualify do not require notice. (Bracket v. Cleveland, 147 Colo. 328, 363 P.2d 1050, 1961). 6. There is no deadline for filing a motion under Rule 97. Upon good cause, a motion may be filed when bias or prejudice become evident under Rule 21 (b). Ajudge may disqualify himself even though the proper procedures were not followed by the moving party. (Beckord v. District Court, 698 P.2d 1323, Colo. 1985). Based on the foregoing statements of law as applied to the facts contained in the Motion to Recuse and exhibits, Petitioner moves that Judge Howard be disqualified and/or recuse himself from any further actions in this case, except to transfer it for reassignment to a Judge that does not have an affiliation with CSU or prejudice against Susan Holmes. WOF76 RBI? MOTION TO 3Si itted on this day, June 15, 2020. Susan Holmes, Petitioner [email protected] 970-372-6522 Exhibits included: 1. Letter to Susan Holmes from Judge Howard, June 11, 2019 2. Judicial Complaint on Judge Howard, June 12, 2019 Certificate of Service to the Respondent's attorney, Linda Lauchli, via email June 15,2020 s/Susan Holmes ADF 76 RSI'7 MOTIONTODistrict Court coe EIGHTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT 201 LA PORTE AVENUE SUITE 100 FORT COLLINS CO 80521-2761 (970) 494-3620 Stephen E, Howard Fax: (970) 494-3699 Chief Judge Courtroom 3A June 11,2019 Susan Holmes 2608 Leisure Drive Fort Collins, CO 80525 Sent via email to: [email protected] Dear Ms. Holmes: Janelle Brunin, the Court Executive for the Eighth Judicial Distriet, has forwarded to me your request to appeal Ms. Brunin’s conclusion that your case has been handled in accordance with the routine operations of the judicial district. Your complaint claims that the district court reassigned your case from an unbiased judge (Judge Jouard) to a judge that the district court fully knew had an overt bias against you (Judge Field), that Judge Field delayed six weeks before revealing her bias, that it then took three weeks to assign another conference date and that a hearing date was then set seven months after the case was filed. You state that “this Court” has acted unethically and with impunity to impede your due process and that the “District Court should be sanctioned and an immediate remedy provided.” Initially, I agree with everything stated by Ms. Brunin in response to your complaint. It is my responsibility as Chief Judge to determine the case assignments of the judges. It has been the practice of the Eighth Judicial District since before I was appointed to be a judge to rotate case assignments. Prior to February 4, 2019, Judge Field handled many criminal cases and Judge Jouard handled no criminal cases. On February 4, 2019, at my direction and as part of the routine rotation of assignments, Judge Jouard was assigned all of Judge Field’s cri cases. At the time there was no recognition of a possible conflict because of the large al cases and Judge Field was assigned 60% of Judge Jouard’s civil number of cases being reassigned. When Judge Field recognized the possible conflict, she Erbe bit Jrecused herself. When a judge issues a recusal order, the clerk’s office assigns the case to the next judge in rotation, which in this case was Judge Brinegar. Your case was filed on December 8, 2018. It is now set for hearing on July 19, 2019, It was previously set for hearing on June 7, 2019 so the reassignment from Judge Field resulted in a delay of 42 days. Chief Justice Directive 08-05 establishes standards for timeliness of case processing in the Judicial Branch. The benchmark for an individual district court judge is to have no more than 20% of civil cases open more than 18 months. Obviously, the hearing in your case is set well within that benchmark. The aspirational goal for the district is to have no more than 10% of district court civil cases open more than one year. The he: in your case is set well within that goal. The demands of each case vary bbut your case is being handled ina reasonably prompt manner, Your most recent e-mail to Ms. Brunin references C.R.S. § 24-72-305(7) as providing a right to a hearing at the earliest possible time on your claim of violation of due process. The statute you cite concerns access to criminal justice records and only provides for a hearing when a request for access to criminal justice records has been denied. There has been no request for any criminal justice records, nor does it appear that any criminal justice records are relevant to any of the concerns you have expressed. Therefore, there is no basis for a hearing. Based on my review of this matter there have been no improprieties. It is not clear to me how you think the “District Court” can be sanctioned or what sanetion you think would constitute an immediate and appropriate remedy. I do not have the power to suspend or discipline any of the judges involved. Judges are appointed by the governor and are subject to periodic retention eleetions where they can be voted out of office. The Colorado Commission on Judicial Discipline has authority to discipline the judiciary of courts of record for willful misconduct, willful or persistent failure to perform duties, intemperance or violations of ethical principles. If you wish to pursue this matter and think that you have grounds to do so you may contact the commission at www.coloradojudicialdiscipline.com. Sincerely, 2 fouwef Stephen E. Howard Chief District Court Judge 8'* Judicial District Court Fort Collins, Colorado 970-494-3620COPY Request For Evaluation of Judicial Conduct (RFE) (Amended) June 12, 2019 Judge: Judge Stephen E. Howard Larimer County 8" Judicial District Chief Judge Courtroom 3A Requesting Party: Susan Holmes [email protected] Fort Collins, CO. 8052 970-372-6522 Statement of Facts 1. This is a civil case in the 8" Judicial District filed on Dec. 8, 2018 https://www,scribd.com/document/396515012/2018-12-08-24-31-17-Complaint-and-Application-for- Order-to-Show-Cause-3 2. Case Number 2018CV31146 3, Susan Holmes, Plaintiff filed an administrative complaint on May 20, 2019 https://drive.zoogle.com/file/d/1wUNOcA3GPGGxWn74sbx-4RF_41kUI6nX/view?ts=ScebSffd 4, Susan Holmes rejected the District Administrator's response & requested an appeal Eyhib HL5, E-mail response to appeal was sent from Chief Judge Stephen E, Howard on June 11, 2019 https://drive google.com file/d/161WwCFGkhEceSiNeLRnmmWX9{mOSB6gHR/view 6. Judge Howard demonstrates overt discrimination, bias & support Susan Holmes violation of due process via his statements about her case. See quote from his response document and cited below: “Your most recent e-mail to Ms. Brunin references C.R.S. § 24-72-305(7) as providing a right to a hearing at the earliest possible time on your claim of violation of due process. The statute you cite concerns access to criminal justice records and only provides for a hearing when a request for access to criminal justice records has been denied. There has been no request for any criminal justice records, nor does it appear that any criminal justice records are relevant to any of the concerns you have expressed. Therefore, there is no basis for a hearing.” 7. Judge Howard references Susan Holmes supposed misapplication of State Statute C.R.S. § 24-72-305(7) 8. Chief Judge Howard states that there has been no request for any criminal justice records. (False Statement) 9. Chief Judge Howard states that it does not appear that any criminal justice records are relevant to any concerns you have expressed (False) 10. Therefore, Judge Howard concludes in his judicial capacity that there is no basis for a hearing. (Administrative judgment with no due process) 11. Judge Howard makes statements that affect the management of Susan Holmes’s case; is this why Susan Holmes case Motions filed on June 3, 2019, have not been ruled on?Summary of Actions That Involve Misconduct Judge Howard states a position and opinion on an open case that has yet to be ruled on. His position demonstrates the ongoing overt bias & discrimination against Susan Holmes in the 8" Judicial District. He chastises Susan Holmes’s position on applying the appropriate state statute for requesting a timely hearing which is the actual remedy for the denial of criminal records under the Colorado Criminal Justice Records. What's confusing and dangerous about Judge Howard's irrational opinions as a sitting Chief Judge is that he falsely misrepresents the nature of case that Susan Holmes is a party to. Susan Holmes v Colorado State University is a civil case that is directly the result of a denial of criminal records!! See Complaint and Exhibits filed on December 8, 2018 hhttps://sites. google.com/view/jeremy-holmes-justice/home/december-2018-lawsuit-documents Judge Howard supports his blatant misrepresentation of this case with a number of false statements. See facts 8-10: 8. Chief Judge Howard states that there has been no request for any criminal justice records. (False Statement) 9. Chief Judge Howard states that it does not appear that any criminal justice records are relevant to any concerns you have expressed (False) 10. Therefore, Judge Howard concludes in his judicial capacity that there is no basis for a hearing. (Administrative judgment with no due process) This is an ongoing case currently in litigation. Judge Stephen E. Howard has violated a number of the rules in the Colorado Code of Judicial Conduct. He has. literally stated that there is no basis for a hearing in this case. That opinion influences and informs the ongoing violation of due process provided by Federal Civil Law and Colorado state statute. Judge Howard has also stated that he directed the rotation of the cases from Judge Jouard to Judge Julie Kunce Field in February 2019. Here’s quote from his response document:“On February 4, 2019, at my direction and as part of the routine rotation of assignments, Judge Jouard was assigned all of Judge Field’s criminal cases and Judge Field was assigned 60% of Judge Jouard’s civil cases.” It is my belief that Chief Judge Howard was fully aware of Judge Field’s association & ties with Colorado State University at the time that he transferred the case to her Court, This action clearly falls under judicial misconduct and supports my claim that due process in my case has been impeded and compromised by Chief Judge Howard and Judge Julie Kunce Field. See my complaint on Judge Field submitted to your Commission on May 26, 2019: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1RLIxrUF-CatTEPITICif_aEZiLCfc8/view | am providing 2 attachments 1.) Chief Judge Stephen E Howard's Judicial Complaint Response to Susan Holmes June 11, 2019 document as an attachment to this complaint and 2) Susan Holmes Response to Chief Judge Howard June 12 2019 These are some of the violations that Chief Judge Howard's actions and statements would fall under. | believe there are more. | am also requesting an investigation into the ongoing violations of my due process taking place under Chief Judge Stephen E. Howard's administration of the 8” Judicial District. Colorado Code of Judicial Conduct Rule 2.6: Ensuring the Right to Be Heard Impeded Susan Holmes’s right to be heard in a timely manner Page 19 Rule 2.4: External Influences on Judicial Conduct. (C) A judge shall not convey or permit others to convey the impression that any person or organization is in a position to influence the judge Rule 2.2: Impartiality and Fairness A judge shall uphold and apply the law, and shall perform all duties of judicial office fairly and impartially.These are just a few of Judge Howard's violations State Law Colo. Rev. Stat. § 24-72-204(5) (b) Hearing on the application described in subsection (5)(a) of this section must be held at the earliest practical time. Federal Violations 28 US. Code § 144 Bias or prejudice of judge 14" Amendment Amendment XIV Section 1 All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. This complaint is being submitted to: Colorado Commission on Judicial Discipline 1300 Broadway, Suite 210 Denver, CO 80203 Fax: 303.501.1143 Email: [email protected] Via E-mail Included with this complaint is the Response document from Judge Howard dated June 11, 2019 Susan Holmes June 12, 2019 [email protected] 970-372-6522Please respond with an e-mail receipt that you have received this complaint s/Susan Holmes