Former Judicial Discipline Director Files Federal Lawsuit Challenging Colorado Supreme Court Oversight

By Shaina Cole | Contributing Writer, Rocky Mountain Voice

A former top official inside Colorado’s judicial discipline system is accusing the state’s highest court of protecting itself — and says he was fired after trying to hold it accountable.

Christopher S.P. Gregory’s federal lawsuit names an unusually broad group of defendants: the Colorado Judicial Discipline Rulemaking Committee, the Colorado Supreme Court, Governor Jared Polis, Attorney General Phil Weiser, current and former justices, senior judicial administrators, and other state officials.

The breadth of the case is intentional.

He is not just accusing individuals of wrongdoing. He is challenging the framework that he says allowed those individuals to influence — and ultimately suppress — the very process meant to review them.

The Masias Contract and the Audit Allegations

According to Gregory’s verified complaint, the dispute traces back to July 15, 2018. On that date, State Court Administrator’s Office Controller Myra Dukes discovered and internally reported evidence that then–Chief of Staff Mindy Masias had intentionally altered a receipt in connection with a personal reimbursement request.

The complaint states that State Court Administrator Christopher Ryan immediately recognized that the alleged misconduct was material to Colorado’s continuous statewide audit process. Colorado, like other states, must produce an Annual Comprehensive Financial Report in order to receive federal funding and maintain its federally granted authority to issue bonds.

The audit at issue was not merely internal bookkeeping. It was tied to federal compliance and public financing.

After internal investigations, Masias was terminated. Rather than accept the severance offer, she activated leave under the Family Medical Leave Act. In December 2018, negotiations began for a multi-million-dollar, sole-source contract under which Masias would provide leadership training services to the Judicial Department.

Gregory’s complaint alleges that during those negotiations, senior officials presented what he describes as an ultimatum — that Masias would release compromising information about the department and the justices if an agreement was not reached. Those allegations were reduced to writing in what later became known as the Masias Memo.

According to the complaint, then–Chief Justice Nathan Coats informed the other justices of the proposed contract, and the $2.66 to $2.75 million agreement was circulated for execution in April 2019.

At roughly the same time, an anonymous complaint was submitted to the Office of the State Auditor’s Fraud Hotline alleging widespread occupational fraud within the State Court Administrator’s Office. The complaint was sent to the justices, Attorney General Phil Weiser, and Governor Jared Polis.

The existence of the contract later became public in July 2019. The justices accepted Administrator Ryan’s resignation and announced cancellation of the agreement.

In February 2022, the Office of the State Auditor released a Fraud Hotline investigation report with referrals for prosecution. Earlier reporting by Denver7 cited audit findings that described “possible illegal activity” and conduct consistent with occupational fraud involving former Judicial Branch employees. Criminal charges were not ultimately filed, but the audit findings intensified scrutiny of internal controls within the Judicial Department.

Gregory alleges that during this period, the Masias Memo and related information were knowingly concealed from the State Auditor and from the Commission on Judicial Discipline for more than eighteen months — until Ryan publicly revealed the document’s existence.

By 2023, the controversy had reached the state’s highest levels. Because the sitting Colorado Supreme Court justices recused, a special tribunal was appointed and publicly censured former Chief Justice Nathan Coats in a case titled Matter of Coats. The tribunal’s ruling included stipulated admissions that Coats failed to disclose material details about the Masias contract and its memo to oversight officials.

Gregory argues that the consequences were broader than a delayed audit. He says the concealment also disrupted enforcement of the Code of Judicial Conduct and, in his view, implicated potential false claims violations under both federal and state law.

His public writing reflects the seriousness with which he views those events.

In a 2025 opinion piece, Gregory wrote that Colorado is “haunted by the ghosts of Watergate,” arguing that “the greatest danger to the American republic is not who voters choose to represent them but rather the selective enforcement or non-enforcement of our nation’s and our states’ public corruption laws.”

He accused the justices of enforcing “what amounts to a protection racket in which they choose their own investigators, prosecutors, adjudicators, and appellate panels all while acting as their own legislature.”

Those statements now form part of the backdrop to his federal claims.

Reporting, Suppression, and Alleged Retaliation

When the Masias controversy was unfolding, Gregory was already part of the judicial discipline system. He held multiple roles on the Colorado Commission on Judicial Discipline— member, Vice-Chair, and Chair. In January 2022, he stepped back into the organization as Executive Director, remaining in that post until January 19, 2024.

His complaint alleges that as he continued reporting what he viewed as judicial, attorney, and official misconduct — including reporting to federal law enforcement — resistance hardened.

According to the complaint, Gregory brought his concerns to the U.S. Attorney’s Office, the Justice Department’s Public Integrity Section, and the FBI. He says those efforts went nowhere. He also states that oversight bodies — including the Commission on Judicial Discipline and the Judicial Discipline Rulemaking Committee — either ignored or shut down subsequent complaints and requests for review.

In October 2024, Gregory anonymously submitted another Fraud Hotline complaint and a detailed request for evaluation seeking investigation through a conflict-free special commission. According to the complaint, the request was summarily dismissed without public explanation, and Commission leadership later confirmed the dismissal before a Senate Judiciary Committee.

Gregory also alleges that when he attempted to submit public comments during constitutionally required rulemaking proceedings, defendants refused to accept or publish his submissions into the public record.

The complaint describes this as prior restraint and censorship of his speech, including what he characterizes as mandatory reporting of suspected misconduct.

Gregory alleges that retaliation escalated into his termination as Executive Director. He describes his firing as part of a broader pattern of suppressing whistleblowers and regulators who sought accountability for the Masias Contract and related concealment.

What Gregory Is Asking the Court to Do

Gregory is not asking only for damages.

He wants a federal judge to step into Colorado’s judicial oversight system and reset it.

His complaint asks the court to invalidate recent rule changes, halt further rulemaking, and require that oversight bodies be rebuilt through what he calls conflict-free processes.

He wants to be reinstated as Executive Director of the Commission on Judicial Discipline — with authority to form a special commission to hear disciplinary matters independently.

He also seeks compensatory and punitive damages, double backpay with interest, and attorneys’ fees. And he asks the court to require reimbursement to the State of Colorado for public funds used to defend individual officials if those officials are found liable.

He has demanded a jury trial.

Now Before a Federal Judge

The defendants have asked the court to dismiss the lawsuit, and the matter remains pending in federal court.

If the court agrees, the allegations — concealment of audit-related information, suppression of oversight proceedings, retaliation, and interference with judicial discipline — will not move forward.

If the case survives, the internal workings of Colorado’s judicial oversight system could face examination in federal court. Emails. Audit communications. Rulemaking records. Appointment decisions.

Gregory’s lawsuit ultimately centers on a single question: who watches the watchdogs?

Whether the allegations withstand legal scrutiny will determine how much of the state’s judicial oversight system is examined in federal court.

Gregory alleges that the system meant to provide that safeguard was compromised. The defendants deny those claims.

Now the decision rests with a federal court.

For Colorado’s judiciary, the stakes reach beyond one employment dispute. They touch the public’s confidence in whether the state’s highest institutions can police themselves — or whether meaningful oversight must come from outside.