- 0.1 Judge (Magistrate) Moultrie and ruling on motions
- 0.2 Pax Moultrie and putting the children first
- 0.3 We all have our downfalls so we thought we should mention Moultrie’s
- 0.4 Moultrie did reject our motion for cameras in the courtroom
- 0.5 Retain Pax Moultrie and let’s keep her on the bench
- 0.6 Judge (Magistrate) Moultrie's Overall Rating Review is to Retain and a 4.8
- 1 Fairness and Compassion
- 2 Interpretation Of the Law
- 3 Understanding Constitution
- 4 Judge's Overall Rating
At times it is very difficult to find information on judges and magistrates. Pax Moultrie was probably one with the least amount of information available of any of the Jefferson County magistrates. Reform Our Family Courts Now will review Judge Moultrie’s performance on one of our member’s personal experience.
Judge (Magistrate) Moultrie and ruling on motions
Magistrate (Judge) Moultrie was what (in the grand scheme of our broken legal system and family courts) rather fair. So right off the bat we would like to say she should be retained and voted to stay on the bench. She was very tough but very understanding at the same time. That is how family court judges need to be. She granted every objection that she should have and denied the ones that didn’t have merit. That was on both sides including this reviewers.
Pax Moultrie and putting the children first
Pax Moultrie seemed as if she truly cared about the well being of the children in her rulings as well as her discussions during the trial. The reviewer of Moultrie was pro se and she was very patient to make sure they got a fair trial without overstepping her restrictions on offering legal advise. Moultrie offered breaks when she saw things getting tense or bad in the courtroom for people to regroup and calm down.
We all have our downfalls so we thought we should mention Moultrie’s
As all people, judges in particular Moultrie lacked in one area that we found very frustrating. She seemed to lack the understanding of how a small business operates. This reviewer is a small business owner and has what is called revenue and what is called income. There is a huge difference in the two. Anyone that understands business know that revenue is what you make before expenses. Income is after expenses. Just like judges before Pax Moultrie basically refused to take into account that it takes a large amount of money to operate a business. She even ignored fixed expenses such as office lease and advertising contracts. Because of this she awarded legal fees to the other party who’s sworn financial statement shows they have a considerable more assets and income. Again to be fair this happens with about every family court judge and is a complaint of most of the people we talk to.
Moultrie did reject our motion for cameras in the courtroom
One concern we always have here at Reform Our Family Courts Now is transparency. This reviewer filed a motion to video tape the hearing. We are under the opinion that the world needs to see what is happening to good parents and how the system is stacked in favor of certain groups. In order to have equality we believe cameras in the courtroom should be mandatory and videos supplied to either party upon request. The motion was denied by Magistrate Moultrie. In her defense she did pass the buck to head judge’s rule. We did find that rule to be true but it was also our interpretation it still fell on the discretion of the judge and their courtroom. We are not attorneys and hope one day that rule be challenged in the Colorado Supreme court.
Retain Pax Moultrie and let’s keep her on the bench
Reform Our Family Courts would like to offer an opinion to retain Magistrate (judge) Moultrie. One thing this reviewer noticed is she is one of the few judges I have been in front of that you could actually see her battling her personal beliefs vs the law. This reviewer felt Moultrie really had a personal disliking to the reviewer but she let the law prevail in every single instance. That is what a judge is supposed to do and we commend her for that. A judges personal or political views should never be known during a ruling. It is about them making a decision based on law not their opinion of how they feel. We think she is fair and has a very good grasp on the law and is the kind of judge we would like to see people vote to keep on the bench.