Rabbi Bellinsky Accuses Court Administrator Vasconcellos of Serious Misconduct in Records Scandal
By Richard Luthmann
Tenth Circuit Win Fuels New Transparency Fight
Rabbi Jacob Bellinsky is riding high after a major federal court victory. In July, the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the dismissal of his civil-rights lawsuits against major players in the Colorado Family Court, including high-ranking judges and officials.
The case was sent back for discovery and trial. That win exposed alleged corruption in Colorado’s family courts and emboldened Bellinsky’s crusade for judicial accountability.
Now, in a somewhat related move to expose Colorado court corruption, he has turned his sights on the state’s top judicial administrator in a Denver court battle over public records.
Bellinsky is suing Colorado State Court Administrator Steven Vasconcellos under the Public Access to Information and Records Rule (PAIRR 2). He says Vasconcellos’s office stonewalled his requests about judicial misconduct investigations.
Bellinsky claims this case reveals “coordinated deception at the highest levels” of Colorado’s judiciary.
He briefly celebrated his appellate win, then dove back into a fight for transparency. At stake is whether the judicial branch can keep misconduct complaints secret or must come clean.
Colorado Records Rat: Perjury Allegations and “Smoking Gun” Emails
Bellinsky’s court filings depict a blatant pattern of false statements and hidden documents. He alleges Vasconcellos committed perjury by swearing that “no records exist” on key misconduct matters.
Yet Bellinsky uncovered emails that directly contradict those sworn denials. One email from August 27, 2024, is particularly damning.
Vasconcellos assured Bellinsky, “I am confident we will not lose track of these seven matters… The matters are being actively investigated.”
In court later, he insisted there were no tracking records for those same investigations – a claim Bellinsky labels “demonstrable perjury”.
Another internal message stands out as a smoking gun. A November 19, 2024, email shows a critical memo dated August 30, 2024, was “completed back in August.” This memo – summarizing misconduct complaints against judges – was inexplicably withheld from Bellinsky for five months.
Vasconcellos had sworn under oath that no records explained the delay. Bellinsky says the November email proves officials “knew of the memo and discussed it” internally while keeping it secret. By claiming no such records exist, Vasconcellos crossed the line.
“It is refuted by the very documents produced by the State,” Bellinsky writes.
The reply brief lists over 30 instances where the court administrator’s office told Bellinsky no records existed. These range from basic tracking logs to communications with the Colorado Supreme Court.
Bellinsky maintains it defies belief that not a single email or note exists for these routine oversight functions. His filings describe an “unmistakable pattern: avoid written communication, suppress documentation, deny existence” of records.
In short, he accuses the state of a deliberate cover-up. The allegation is stark: Colorado’s top court official lied under oath to hide what was really happening with judicial misconduct files.
Judge Tuttle’s Secret Dual Role Exposed
The scandal widens with a judge’s conflict of interest. Bellinsky discovered a glaring double role involving Judge Dinsmore Tuttle. He filed a misconduct complaint against Tuttle on August 20, 2024. At the same time, she was helping oversee the very system that would judge her.
Just a week after Bellinsky’s complaint, Vasconcellos confirmed that seven judicial complaints were under active review – including the one targeting Tuttle.
But on August 30, 2024, the State Court Administrator’s office circulated a memo about “pending” complaints. Tuttle’s name was mysteriously omitted.
Bellinsky contends that omission was no accident – it was calculated concealment.
Behind the scenes, Judge Tuttle held a powerful role. She served as co-chair of the Senior Judge Advisory Committee, the body revising policies on judge oversight. Internal emails show that by November 20, 2024, Tuttle was a committee co-chair while her own conduct was under investigation.
Tuttle helped draft changes to judicial discipline policies in December 2024. She even voted on new oversight rules on February 19, 2025 – all while her complaint was pending.
Colorado Records Rat: State Denials and High Stakes in the Court’s Ruling
Colorado’s Attorney General, representing Vasconcellos, flatly rejects Bellinsky’s accusations. The state’s official response insists that “the SCAO produced all responsive documents” and did nothing wrong.
The Attorney General’s filing calls Bellinsky’s allegations of lying “not true.” It cites Vasconcellos’s sworn affidavit saying multiple searches found no records in several instances.
“Petitioner makes four arguments in support of his allegation that the SCAO lied. None are availing,” the state declares bluntly.
In one example, Bellinsky pointed to the “not lose track” email as proof of tracking records. The state counters that this email doesn’t prove an official log exists, insisting they told the truth when they reported no documents found.
Similarly, officials note that even if the Chief Justice was “aware” of the complaints, it doesn’t mean any written communication existed. They argue that any delays or omissions were legally justified and that nothing was documented improperly under public records rules.
Judge Kandace Gerdes now faces a momentous decision in Denver District Court.
For Bellinsky, this case is about more than paperwork. He calls it “not a mere administrative dispute, but a constitutional emergency” driven by “credible allegations of perjury… and demonstrable conflicts of interest” at the highest levels.
He warns that “the judicial system cannot police itself when those tasked with oversight are also the architects of concealment.”
If Judge Gerdes rules against him and dismisses the petition, Bellinsky argues that a cover-up will be effectively sanctioned. On the other hand, a ruling in his favor could force unprecedented openness.
Bellinsky is asking for a special master to dig into files, an in-camera review of withheld documents, and even a criminal perjury referral.
The outcome will either vindicate the state’s denials or unleash a reckoning for Colorado’s judicial watchdogs. Either way, the stakes for public trust in the courts could not be higher.
