Hon. Randall C. Arp See Rating Details
District Judge
District Court
Jefferson County
1st Judicial District
See Comments

Attorney Average Rating:   9.5 - 2 rating(s)
Non-Attorney Average Rating:   2.0 - 10 rating(s)
Please send me alerts on this judge
E-mail Address:




Add your own rating

E-Mail Address (will not be displayed)
   
Confirm E-mail Address      
Zip
Occupation

Only items marked with (*) are averaged into the displayed overall rating.


General Rating Criteria

* Temperament (1=Awful,10=Excellent)
* Scholarship (1=Awful,10=Excellent)
* Industriousness (1=Not at all industrious,10=Highly industrious)
* Ability to Handle Complex Litigation (1=Awful,10=Excellent)
* Punctuality (1=Chronically Late,10=Always on Time)
* General Ability to Handle Pre-Trial Matters (1=Not all Able, 10=Extremely Able)
* General Ability as a Trial Judge (1=Not all Able, 10=Extremely Able)
Flexibility In Scheduling (1=Completely Inflexible,10=Very Flexible)


Criminal Rating Criteria (if applicable)

* Evenhandedness in Criminal Litigation (1=Demonstrates Bias,10=Entirely Evenhanded)
General Inclination Regarding Bail (1=Pro-Defense,10=Pro-Government)
Involvement in Plea Discussions (1=Not at all Involved, 10=Very Involved)
General Inclination in Criminal Cases Pretrial Stage (1=Pro-prosecution,10=Pro-defense)
General Inclination in Criminal Cases Trial Stage (1=Pro-prosecution,10=Pro-defense)
General Inclination in Criminal Cases Sentencing Stage (1=Pro-prosecution,10=Pro-defense)


Civil Rating Criteria (if applicable)

* Evenhandedness in Civil Litigation (1=Not at all Evenhanded,10=Entirely Evenhanded)
Involvement in Settlement Discussions (1=Not at all Involved,10=Very Involved)
General Inclination (1=Pro-defendant, 10=Pro-plaintiff)
Comments


Please type what you see below:

    

What others have said about Hon. Randall C. Arp


Comments


Litigant

Comment #: CO594
Rating:1.0
Comments:
After years, I am bringing awareness surrounding Judge Randall Arp's ongoing bias against women and how that is perpetuating harm on our children.

For years, women have witnessed Judge Arp minimize and ignore domestic violence, shame/punish mothers as victims of domestic violence, and refuse to allow resources into families struggling. He does this verbally and through non-action/action e.g. ignoring evidence, overly criticizing mothers over meaningless issues, and carefully appointing the Family Investigators (CFIs and PREs) that do the same.

He uses every opportunity to make derogatory comments on court record about only the Mother without any reference to factual findings, while ignoring important evidence against fathers. He has been known to even punish/criticize mothers for following his orders (if he later didn't like the result of the order). When challenged, he will become angry and demand his top priority is the best interest of the children, while informing you the law gives him judicial discretion. (in other words a subtle warning that "you'll lose on an appeal"). However, he has been overturned recently on appeal.

Jefferson county specifically seems to be a hot spot of complaints such as these; however, I am concerned by recent articles from the Gazette (by Chris Osher) the entire system in Colorado is very tilted towards men.

Please email me so we can speak further. While I hope you are doing well, it's important I understand how Judge Arp's decisions have had an ongoing harmful impact to you and your family.

The only way this will stop is in locking arms and standing up to say you are harming our children and we won't stand for it. If you haven't done so, make sure to request alerts on this judge above.

Other

Comment #: CO589
Rating:1.0
Comments:
This judge is absolutely atrocious!
He should be ashamed of himself, but that would require not only accountability, but integrity, which he has proven numerous times to have none. His biased, unfair and arrogant rulings in family court have not only destroyed MOMS and KIDS, but left children to deal with abuse, neglect and mental health issues. I dont know how many more women have to complain before someone does something with this Judge.

Other

Comment #: CO588
Rating:1.0
Comments:
This judge is absolutely atrocious!
He should be ashamed of himself, but that would require not only accountability, but integrity, which he has proven numerous times to have none. His biased, unfair and arrogant rulings in family court have not only destroyed MOMS and KIDS, but left children to deal with abuse, neglect and mental health issues. I dont know how many more women have to complain before someone does something with this Judge.

Litigant

Comment #: CO575
Rating:10.0
Comments:
Extremely bright, consistent and level headed. Great at applying law and ruling over complex cases; both civil and criminal.

Other

Comment #: CO527
Rating:Not Rated
Comments:
less than professional. As a court Administrator, he failed miserably in directing his staff. On a scale of 1 to 10 I would say less than 1.

I am a duly appointed and licensed bail bonding agent within the State of Colorado. In my professional considered opinion and belief I feel there was a serious and major error in the calculation of time in the case I represent, concerning judgment due date, calculations, and for Stay of execution, and being placed on the ‘BOARD.”

I wish to redress of grievance and to file and make a complaint AND to request or urge AUDIT of cases in Division 9 of the Jefferson County District Court. It appears gross negligence, administrative errors, incompetence, egregious and maliciously unjust loss as a result of being placed on the ‘BOARD’ unlawfully. Though on the surface it may appear trivial, none-the-less this error is significantly serious.

My major concern is and was being placed on the ‘BOARD’ unjustly and unlawfully which caused me to suffer unnecessary financial loss and harm. From the Honorable Judge R. Arp’s ruling (SEE ATTACHED) in which I was granted a 90 day stay of execution AND to be added to the original expiration date of 02/13/2022 as was already awarded pursuant to statute of 126 days. Thus 126 + 90 = making it 216 days total from the date of the failure to appear, which would mean the new date of judgment due would be 5/14/2022. I was placed on the ‘BOARD’ for a second time incorrectly, unjustly, and unlawfully on 4/29/2022 causing a 15-day error, and not to mention an egregious and gross negligent financial loss. This was an unwarranted unnecessary administrative error. It did not cost the courts any financial loss, but most certainly cost the named commercial bail bonding agent. Agent lost more than financial loss, but also credibility in the sight of public citizens and also professional agents.

Even if the error was misconstrued and the 90 days were granted from the judge’s date of ‘ORDER’ 01/10/2022, that not only would be incorrect, the end result would have ended on 4/10/2022, whilst removing 35 days already originally awarded by statute.

I was placed on the ‘BOARD’ on 4/29/2022 late Friday night as I had posted bonds early in the day and was not on the ‘BOARD.’ Thus, I could not rectify nor take care of this situation until Monday morning 05/02/2022 loosing countless requests for assistance in posting commercial bail for my many clients. There can and is no way to calculate the damage done nor the financial income lost.

In my considered professional opinion NO bondsman should ever be placed on the ‘BOARD’ over the weekend, as there is no option available to rectify the situation.

Attached is my actual court filing. I will also make the same claim and request to the State Court Administrator requesting a full audit of records and/or files consisting of specifically calculations of time.

The question remains, if these errors in calculation of time exist, and can happen to me, then how many other errors have been unlawfully manufactured?

Other

Comment #: CO497
Rating:3.0
Comments:
Hon. Randall Arp asked the right questions, but came to the wrong conclusions. While he was even-tempered, I really would have liked to see more professional competence. I sensed an underlying bias with respect to gender and sex. I would not say he is impartial and independent; it was disappointing to stomach his interpretation of the law.

Other

Comment #: CO494
Rating:1.0
Comments:
This judge has such a bias! I am watching him in a case between the Board of Public Health and some local schools. He is condescending, he does not control his court room, he is biased towards big firms and big names. Dr. Comstock gets special treatment, is an unreasonable witness and he does not reign her in. This judge is awful and I feel sorry for anyone who comes in front of him. I hope he retires.

Other

Comment #: CO435
Rating:Not Rated
Comments:
Honorable Randall C. Are is more concerned about protecting a registered sex offenders rights during a custody and divorce hearing, that he can not be level headed on the best interest of the children. He seemed determined to break a mother in stand for hours, while the father takes the 5th. The rights of a man that wants to have sex with a child does not trump the fairness our justice system. He twice the law to benefit the unworthy and children now will suffer. He either hates women and mothers or solely is a supporter in what he ruled. Disgusting!

Litigant

Comment #: CO424
Rating:8.0
Comments:
Fair judge. Although I haven’t always agreed with his rulings, he asks the right questions.

Other

Comment #: CO417
Rating:1.0
Comments:
Randall C. Arp seriously needs DOMESTIC VIOLENCE training. My ex-husbands jail time and one year probation was dismissed as "It's only his first offense." Judge Arp shamed me for leaving my job to stay and help my Autistic and ADHD son. He asked me about the domestic violence I experienced, and said, "That's not scary." Judge Randall C. Arp cost me 6 more years of ongoing court battles to get my son medicated and safely back with me. He is a bully.

Civil Litigation - Private

Comment #: CO249
Rating:10.0
Comments:
Judge Arp is brilliant. His rulings are outside of the box, but always, dead on fair.

Litigant

Comment #: CO210
Rating:1.0
Comments:
Judge Arp does not care about what is best for children. He refused to hear testimony about child abuse, documented through Human Services, instead believing that he knew everything about the child abuse. He chose to give 50% custody to the abuser, seeming to think that it is better to split the children between both parents than to look at who was the more fit parent. In his courtroom, the men had more speaking time and he chastised the women. The father merely had to express the intent to parent for Judge Arp to award him 50% custody, despite the documented history of child abuse. Judge Arp forced my ex and I into mediation -- which, after the fact, I learned is illegal in this state in cases of child abuse and domestic violence.

Litigant

Comment #: CO201
Rating:1.0
Comments:
This judge is very gender biased against women. he has a poor understanding of domestic violence and child abuse.