Possible explanation for Larimer County judge's absence

Submitted by CatWhisperer on Sun, 07/14/2013 - 03:27

On Friday, July 12, the Coloradoan came out with a story titled “No explanation for Larimer County judge's absence”, which is quoted below. So I did a little research on Google for Robert Rand. Google Scholar came up with the following entry from the 10th Federal District (Order quoted below):

CAROL DAVY, Plaintiff,
v.
JUDGE ROBERT RAND, in his official capacity as Larimer County Court Judge, CLIFFORD REIDEL, in his official capacity as District Attorney for Larimer County, and JOHN HICKENLOOPER, in his official capacity as Governor of the State of Colorado, Defendants.
Civil Action No. 13-cv-00509-PAB.
United States District Court, D. Colorado.
March 1, 2013.

Now what is that about? Google Scholar doesn't give the initial pleadings or the case number. Even if not at all related, it is quite the coincidence. Anybody know what this case is about?

Coloradoan Story:No explanation for Larimer County judge's absence
Author: Trevor Hughes

A Larimer County judge is on leave, and none of his bosses will explain why he’s no longer coming to work.

Judge Robert Rand is on leave from his $123,000-a-year-position as a county court judge. Until the end of May, Rand was assigned a courtroom at the Loveland courthouse but was then abruptly transferred to the Larimer County Justice Center in Fort Collins. Attorneys who appear before him — and who are struggling to understand his disappearance — said Rand went on leave July 1.

Rand’s boss, Chief Judge Stephen Schapanski, declined to discuss the matter. “Judge Rand is on leave,” was all he would say.

A spokesman for the state court system, Jon Sarche, offered a similar answer: “He’s on leave.”

Several attorneys asked the Coloradoan to investigate what happened, because no one will tell them. Rand, a former defense attorney, was appointed to the bench in 2009.

Defense attorney Troy Krenning is among those wondering what happened to Rand, a judge he has appeared before many times.



“He enjoys the same presumption of innocence that those who appear in his court enjoy and that until people know the facts no conclusions should be drawn,” Krenning said.

The Google Scholar Federal Court Opinion for Davy v. Rand:

ORDER

PHILIP A. BRIMMER, District Judge.

This matter is before the Court on the Motion for Expedited Preliminary Injunction and Declaratory Relief [Docket No. 2] filed by plaintiff Carol Davy, a defendant in a state criminal case. Ms. Davy seeks an order from this Court enjoining her pending state criminal prosecution.

Ms. Davy is scheduled for trial on April 9, 2013 in Case No. 2012M1727 in the County Court for Larimer County, Colorado. Docket No. 1 at 10, ¶ 19. She is charged with harassment under Colo. Rev. Stat. § 18-9-111(1)(b) and Colo. Rev. Stat. § 18-9-111(1)(c). Docket No. 1 at 5, ¶ 11. Each of these charges is a misdemeanor under Colorado law.

To obtain a preliminary injunction, Ms. Davy must demonstrate four factors: "(1) a likelihood of success on the merits; (2) a likelihood that [he] will suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief; (3) that the balance of equities tips in [his] favor; and (4) that the injunction is in the public interest." RoDa Drilling Co. v. Siegal, 552 F.3d 1203, 1208 (10th Cir. 2009). "[B]ecause a preliminary injunction is an extraordinary remedy, the right to relief must be clear and unequivocal." Greater Yellowstone Coal. v. Flowers, 321 F.3d 1250, 1256 (10th Cir. 2003).

Read the rest on Google Scholar. Very interesting stuff, BTW, because though the complaint was dismissed and motions denied, it was dismissed without prejudice, meaning it can be refiled. Regardless, Larimer County citizen, you are paying, AGAIN, for the transgressions of the judicial system in this County, LOL!

Comments

I can tell you one reason that Judge Rand should be disbarred and that is because he has violated the civil rights of people by signing bogus search warrants that don't meet the 4th amendment requirements regarding search and seizure. He obviously believes that the ends justify the means. It is an unlawful and horrendous act for a government to send the SWAT Team into a family's home, without probable cause, in hopes of finding something illegal, and then leaving, as if nothing had ever happened, when they don't find anything illegal.a2++g

Having had hired him to defend me before he became a judge on charges stemming from a bogus search warrant, it was his opinion that there wasn't one judge in Larimer County that would agree or rather oppose another judges decision in that that there was not probable cause for the warrant, even agreeing with me that he too felt there wasn't probable cause himself, he refused to bring this to the courts attention. So yea...

Add new comment

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.

Restricted HTML

  • Allowed HTML tags: <a href hreflang> <em> <strong> <cite> <blockquote cite> <code> <ul type> <ol start type> <li> <dl> <dt> <dd> <h2 id> <h3 id> <h4 id> <h5 id> <h6 id>
  • Web page addresses and email addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.