Tags: judge
Clear The Bench Colorado
October 1st, 2010Clear The Bench Colorado--Friday Morning
Dear friends,
If the three unjust justices - Michael Bender, Alex Martinez and Nancy Rice - stay on in the Supreme Court, they will continue the Mullarkey legacy of ignoring the Constitution. The rulings they promote are called a "progressive ideology", further destroying our rights as citizens of Colorado.
We have very precious few days left until the mail-in ballots drop on October 12.
CEW knows this... and they want to make sure they keep OUR money until after that date.
Big surprise: Colorado Ethics Watch (CEW, pronounced "sue" - because it's what they do) is at it again.
It has clearly been the intention of CEW, since we won our case, and they first filed a bogus filing on May 5, 2010, that it hopes to tie up our resources for as long as possible protecting the Colorado Supreme Court Justices.
On Monday, September 20, CEW filed for a "Enlargement of Time" in order to pay the attorney's fees they've owed us-literally tens of thousands of dollars - since the judge hearing their original "complaint" ordered them to pay up on July 21, 2010.
It's not like they don't have the money. It's not even like they have much math to do.
They are, quite simply, continuing to try and prevent the word from getting out - that quitting Chief Justice Mullarkey's gang of Constitution-shredders shouldn't have a "rubber stamp" to stay in office... FOR ANOTHER 10 YEAR TERM.
Unfortunately, campaigns like this don't run themselves. And more unfortunately, campaigns like this don't fund themselves.
We need your help. We need your generous donation of time, effort, and finances in order to win this campaign.
A decision has yet to be reached as to whether or not CEW will receive that "Enlargement of Time", but even then, we still need your help.
In the mean time (and it's hard to say when that decision will be made), we still have flyers to print, signs to produce (and distribute!) and the word to get out.
It is absolutely vital for the survival of our state that we take out the trash this election - this includes those who would rather use our Constitution for confetti than as the guiding principle for their judgements, the highest law of the state.
We must get the word out. And we need your help to do it...
In late August, we ran a statewide poll, and the results are clear and resounding: across absolutely every demographic (race, gender, party affiliation and location in the state) if the word gets out, 78% of voters will vote "NO" on these unjust justices.
This is, quite simply, the biggest no-brainer in Colorado politics this election.
We have ten more years of guaranteed bad judges with the remnant of the Mullarkey Majority in Michael Bender, Alex Martinez and Nancy Rice - or two years of (at worst) of an unknown quantity (which can't possibly get any worse).
However, even with the two years of unknown, we do know that:
1. It is simply impossible to be worse than 0-15 in upholding our Constitution;
2. There is the chance it might be "as bad", but we can vote them out in two years rather than ten; and
3. There is the even greater chance it could get better - and we might even get a judge good enough to not vote out in two years. In any case, any replacements will definitely get the message: the people are watching, and WILL hold them accountable to their oath to support the Constitution.
Regardless of who wins the Governor's race, we must Clear the Bench this year.
In order to do this, to get the word out, we need your help. Contribute today - and help spread the word.
To contribute, go online to http://www.clearthebenchcolorado.org/contribute/ or send checks to CTBC at P.O. Box 372388, Denver CO 80237
The math on this is so simple... two years versus ten years.
Getting the word out gets 78% or higher who say they will vote NO.
This is the biggest no-brainer, the biggest bang for your 2010-political-buck; and a powerful reminder of the issues at stake.
Contribute today, be part of the movement!
Be a citizen, not a subject. Exercise your right to tell these justices "NO!" to 10 more years of job security with no accountability to the people.
WE THE PEOPLE are here, we are watching and together we can (and will!) send a message to the Colorado Supreme Court - we're not going to take it anymore.
For liberty, for the preservation of our Constitution, for the prosperity of our people and our state- we must CLEAR THE BENCH, COLORADO!
For Freedom,
Sarah Anderson
Campaign Manager, Clear the Bench Colorado
P.S. Please contribute whatever you can today - it's crunch time for producing (and distributing) signs & flyers, which is EXACTLY why CEW is holding on to OUR money!
To contribute, go online to http://www.clearthebenchcolorado.org/contribute/or send checks to CTBC at P.O. Box 372388, Denver CO 80237
Teaching the Young about Elections
October 3rd, 2009Link: http://www.EyeOnEnglewood.com
New meaning has been given to this phrase during the election period in Englewood. One night last week, City Council challenger’s signs (Matt Crabtree and Rick Gillit) West of Broadway mysteriously disappeared off of their supporters’ front lawns.
When Rick Gillit found his signs posted all in one yard, he called the police for permission to remove them.
When the Englewood Police arrived on the scene, the local high school coach also drove up asking the police not to make out a report because it was just a cheerleader’s prank and was supervised by adults. The police explained that the so called “prank” was actually trespass and theft.
Police also explained to Mr. Gillit that only the persons whose signs were stolen could submit a formal Complaint. Yet, the signs continue to disappear all over town, including Doug Cohn’s in District 2.
A concerned citizen then requested the Englewood Herald to report the underhanded electioneering activities of the present City Council supervising and instigating the thefts and trespasses, then discounting them as “pranks”.
The reason this activity is much more than a “prank” is because challenging candidates are to be permitted equal access to obtaining office. Citizens are to be provided equal opportunity to the issues through advertising or the entire election may be overturned and the funds spent on this election wasted. Being impeded by Council members who have just voted to allow themselves a third term in office, is not just a prank. It goes to the heart of a republic (under law) and democracy (informed voting).
In 35 years, will these pretty young heads and buff wrestler bodies waste away into mirrors of their mentors?
Take another look at these “mentors.” They have just lost an important Constitutional battle against taking of private property. They have been accused of corruption and malfeasance of office.
Mayor Woodward and Bob McCaslin have been served with an Arapahoe County District Court conspiracy case, together with City Manager Sears and Attorney Brotzman and Judge Atencio. These charges do not depict “responsibility or commitment” but are very serious charges of mismanagement, violating the City Charter and ordinances, wasting taxpayer’s money to ruin individual’s lives whom they dislike or who may have recourse to unseat them, and laziness in training or implementing policies to protect Englewood residents and business owners.
Yesterday, the Denver Post published an article detailing the Constitution does still rule over Home Rule. The present City Council’s choices to take private business property rights was overruled by the Supreme Court. It’s time some shoulders were shaken and some legal advisers were fired. It’s time for a full turn-over of those who govern Englewood as a body.
Judicial McFoolery
September 4th, 2009Link: http://www.EnglewoodStory.com
With sentencing still scheduled for October 9, 2009, for City Councilman McCaslin to have circulated the petition for Judge Atencio's inclusion on the November ballot to the Bartnick's neighbors on Pearl, who were witnesses in the case, seems like a clumsy attempt for payback, and perhaps unethical. If the Englewood judge is elected again, his salary is set over $121,000.00 annually.
On Thursday, August 13, 2009, witnesses for Englewood prosecution foiled the City’s plan to validate the prosecution of boarding house owners. Tricia Langon, Senior Planner, testified that the boarding house amendment “was not returned to Planning and Zoning Commission for their approval, because only major modifications or amendments to the code are returned to the Commission for review.”
Langon also testified that despite the Council’s October 6, 2008 enactment of Ordinance 55, (Boarding Houses) such residences are not businesses, but regular residences. They are not home occupations, and they do not require a license.
The jury was then released early, with the judge and prosecution both recommending the legs of the boarding house ordinance be dismissed in favor of the Bartnicks, and remanded to City Council for review.
Defense immediately went to the throat of the validity of the Ordinance because the Englewood City Charter, Section 58, declares that ALL modifications or amendments to ordinances must revert to Planning and Zoning for study and recommendation, even if the City Council chooses to disregard the recommendation. This is to prevent hasty enactments which often fail the test of justice.
The role of the volunteer citizens’ Planning and Zoning Commission to obtain legal council on proposed zoning codes as to fair housing, equal access and other zoning issues, while civil engineering counsel can ascertain measurable densities and standards. Hasty decisions also circumvent justice simply because they feel like a hard pressure sales job. Only time can allow that kind of intimidation to subside in favor of common sense.
The City circumvented its own Charter many times in the making of new Boarding House provisions, but this was the instance for Defense Council’s request for a directed verdict Thursday afternoon.
Judge Atencio taken aback, hemmed and hawed, and then declined his power and duty to declare summary judgment finding accurately that “what Defense is asking cuts to the heart of the ordinance”. Judge then determined “to allow the jury to decide the facts.”
The electric moment of truth was over. What was left of the material facts is unclear, as Tricia Langon had also admitted to the Bartnicks having pulled proper permits for zoning, but that under the new ordinance, parking areas require paint striping. Striping is an interesting dilemma if, unlike the Bartnicks whose back parking area is paved, the homeowner’s parking is unpaved. Keeping paint on dirt parking might prove to be an expensive year around feat for Englewood residences.
August 14, 2009, the jury, unaware of the previous days’ electricity, was sent to deliberate. They found the Bartnicks guilty of a shell of an Ordinance.
The implications of the Englewood verdict relate not only to setting City precedence for ungrandfathering pre-existing properties into newer codes, but also as to human rights and property ownership, the right to freely associate in the privacy of your own home with whomever you wish. If a neighbor accuses you of being unrelated, so be it.
What City Councilman, Bob McCaslin, was unable to accomplish for his friends, Ron and Robin Noffsinger, through Council legislation,
he turned up in the middle of Pearl Street to celebrate Saturday morning after the verdict was won through judicial McFoolery.
McCaslin's zeal short-sighted his actions linking the Englewood City Council to the very neighbors who had listed their names as witnesses against the so-called business. These neighbors each signed the good-old boy petition for re-election of small town political Judge. This is the same Judge who had refused to recuse himself earlier in the case.
Matthew Crabtree, challenger for the At-Large Council position, stumbled upon the judge's petitions for re-election, thus the confirmation of the City Councilman's conspiracy with the neighbors and the judge, when the clerk gave them to him on September 2, 2009.
The Judge is running unopposed this November. McCaslin is not up for re-election until next year.Are You a Nuisance?
June 24th, 2009Link: http://englewoodcitizens.org/
Nuisance, (through Fr. noisance, nuisance, from Lat. nocere, to hurt) is a common law tort. It means that which causes offense, annoyance, trouble or injury. A nuisance can be either public (also "common") or private. A public nuisance is defined by Englewood Municipal Code.
15-1-1:E.M.C. Applicability and Definitions.
A. The abatement of nuisances in the City of Englewood is hereby declared to be of local concern. It is the duty of all responsible parties including persons, property owners, firms, corporations, occupants, lessees, or any agents or representatives of the record owner or owners, to maintain property within the boundaries of the City of Englewood so as not to cause or maintain an act or condition which endangers the public health, safety or welfare or results in annoyance or discomfort to the public or damage to any property or injury to any person.
Wikipedia says, "Nuisance is one of the oldest causes of action known to the common law, with cases framed in nuisance going back almost to the beginning of recorded case law. Nuisance signifies that the 'right of quiet enjoyment' is being disrupted to such a degree that a tort is being committed."
When neighbors squabble over nothing, depleting another's right to quiet enjoyment of their land, they risk being taken to civil court for the tort of nuisance. Who wants to be labeled that for the rest of their life? Maybe the devils in Tazmania, but not in Englewood.
15-2-1:E.M.C. Nuisance Prohibited.
A. It shall be unlawful for any person to commit or do any act constituting a nuisance.
B. It shall be unlawful for any person to create, continue or suffer the existence of any nuisance on any property under his control.
Although the City Manager maintains the duty and power to abate a nuisance, someone else's nuisance is not really his first priority. He sits above a private neighbor's hell, untouchable.
15-3-1:E.M.C. The City Manager's Power to Abate a Nuisance in Case of an Emergency.
The City Manager is hereby authorized to immediately abate or enjoin any nuisance existing in the City without following the procedures of this Chapter in the case of an emergency, whether or not such nuisance is specifically recognized by this Title.
There is also a City procedure form abating non-emergency nuisances.
15-3-2:E.M.C. Administrative Abatement Procedure in Non-Emergency Situations.
If, after inspecting the property on which a nuisance is reported, the enforcement personnel who are charged or designated by the City Manager with investigating nuisances declare the existence of a nuisance, the following procedures shall be followed.
A. Photographs and/or videotapes and written reports and findings shall be generated.
B. The responsible party or parties shall be determined.
C. The Code Enforcement Officer(s) shall have the discretion to informally abate the nuisance by speaking with the responsible party. In the event that the informal proceedings fail to abate the nuisance within the seven (7) days or three (3) days in the case of graffiti the Code Enforcement Officer may, at his/her discretion, issue a summons and complaint to the responsible party or shall issue a notice pursuant to E.M.C. 15-3-2(D).
D. If the nuisance has not been abated by the informal process or a summons and complaint has not been issued at the conclusion of the seven (7) days or three (3) days in the case of graffiti set forth in E.M.C. 15-3-2(C), a written notice in essentially the form set forth in E.M.C. 15-3-3 of this Chapter shall be served upon the responsible party by personal service or by leaving a copy of the notice at the usual place of residence or business of such owner, responsible party shown by the records contained in the County Clerk and Recorder's Office or in the County Tax Assessor's Office, or by mailing a copy of the written notice to such responsible party at such place or address by United States mail, certified return receipt. If service of such written notice is unable to be perfected by any methods described above, the enforcement personnel shall cause a copy of the notice to be published in a newspaper of general circulation in the City, once a week for two (2) consecutive weeks, or by publishing on the City's official website, or by posting the notice on the property.
E. The notice shall state clearly and concisely the findings of the enforcement personnel with respect to the existence of the nuisance, and the section of the City ordinance(s) that have been violated.
F. The notice shall also state that unless the responsible party shall cause the abatement of the nuisance pursuant to the notice and this Code, the City may abate the nuisance at the expense of the responsible party or may issue a criminal summons and complaint or both.
Finally, there is the option of municipal court. But a Citizen cannot avail themselves of a Citizen's complaint in Englewood's Municipal Court. Head Judge Attencio has specifically and arduously declined to hear a common citizen or to intervene in a neighborhood nuisance complaint.
15-4-1: E.M.C. Judicial Abatement of Nuisances.
A. In addition to all other remedies provided by law, including those specified and set forth in E.M.C. 1-4-1, the Englewood Municipal Court may, upon a finding that a nuisance exists, issue an order enjoining the nuisance, authorizing its repair, restraint, removal, termination or abatement.
B. A responsible party found by the court to have caused a nuisance or allowed the nuisance to be caused or to be continued shall be liable for all costs incurred by the City to abate said nuisance. Such costs may be collected by the City pursuant to Municipal Court order, in a civil action or assessed as a lien against any property on which the abatement was performed as specified in E.M.C. 15-3-7.
C. Prima Facia Evidence. The issuance of three (3) or more notices of violation of this Title shall be prima facie evidence that the responsible party deliberately and wilfully violated this Title and may be punished within the discretion of the court as provided in E.M.C. 1-4-1. This remedy shall be cumulative with all other remedies.
What option does a resident being harassed by nuisential neighbors have? There is the option of a "No Trespass" sign, and the possibility of criminal prosecution for trespass.
7-6F-2:E.M.C. Trespass.
A. It shall be unlawful for any person to enter or remain upon the lands or property of another knowing that the consent to enter or remain is absent, denied or withdrawn by the owner or the person having lawful possession thereof, or any agent of such owner or possessor; provided, that this Section shall not apply to any reasonable entry seeking information or emergency shelter.
B. It shall be unlawful for any person to enter or remain upon the lands, property or vehicle parking areas owned, operated or controlled by any other person, business or merchant when the activity thereat is closed, not operating, nor serving the public and consent to enter or remain upon such lands, property or vehicle parking areas has been denied or withdrawn by a person having authority to do so.
C. Notice posted in the window of the businesses', merchant's or person's building or otherwise upon the property is prima facie evidence that consent to enter or remain is absent and has been denied or withdrawn.
Though in Englewood, getting the judge to hear your complaint is another matter. It seems the government of Englewood plays sport, and quite enjoys the obvious outcome of every offensive move. They can accurately calculate the odds. They will always win.
To Prosecute a Household
April 9th, 2009Link: http://EyeOnEnglewood.com
Why should Englewood prohibit the City from prosecuting any definition of household?
Moral issues are taken care of in the criminal codes of the State and City. Being unrelated and sharing a house, is not in itself worthy of prosecution, but in Englewood, the violation of the City's definition of Household is prima facie evidence of a crime.
Rick Gillit, running for District 4 in the November election, says he believes the term, "'Single Family Residence' is purely a real estate term, and means there is one residence per address. It does not extend to the definition that Englewood currently attaches to 'single family residence' meaning that not more than one unrelated person can live under the same roof."
Since his wife was raised in a home that took in families of patients of Craig Hospital, Gillit may be sensitive to the humanitarian side that some boarding houses offer. But, Englewood has ungrandfathered all pre-existing residences that house more than 1 unrelated person under the same roof.
It is clear that Community Development and Planning and Zoning both have limitations as to implementing codes against existing or grandfathered codes, and are relegated in their duties to forecasting development, plan for the future, and not criminalize the pre-existing.
The Department of Regulatory Agencies (D.O.R.A.) agrees. Their jurisdiction is limited to agencies of the State, not residences. Yet, these departments are the ones prosecuting residents for their choice of who shares their home. Isn't this a privacy issue?
In Gillit's opinion, these departments should not interfere inside a home with whether people are closely related enough to share the residence.
Last July, Planning and Zoning Commission members were asked to amend the code so that City could prosecute a single family in the City Manager's neighborhood. Commission Chair Bleile opposed the tactic as devious. Two other Commission members sided with him, but they ended up the minority and the City Manager Sears achieved his end. The case is scheduled for Court, June 4 and 5, 2009.
In the past five years, the City's habit has been to threaten people reported as violating the definition of household with 7-day or 14-day Notices to Comply. But, when it comes down to the prosecution of such a household, the City staff find themselves asking strange questions of City Manager Sears and Attorneys Brotzman and Reid, "How do we figure the unrelated number 2 again?"
Notice, it is not an issue of knowing how to count 1,2,3,4, or asking the City's accountant. It is rather a question of personal relationships. Does the City have the right to determine your relationships?
Says a widowed father in law who wants to move in with his daughter, "Can they kick me outa' here just because my daughter happens to have a spouse with a son she has not officially adopted? I mean, add me into the mix...ya know? Maybe I shouldn't have sold my place."
Good question. In Alaska, the town actually began to prosecute a family such as this, except the ACLU stepped in. In 2008 Englewood's City Council members McCaslin and Penn promoted not only Englewood's narrow definition of household, but also got personally involved promoting the prosecution and intimidation of moral households who happen to share a home unrelated.
Englewood isn't so afraid of the ACLU, because it has your tax money to fight extended court battles totally in the millions of dollars. Their salaries get paid for looking busy, so why not?
But after all the litigation Englewood has engaged in during the past year, a severe budget cut is occurring of up to 15% to parks and salaries.
But, what if a child has had a name change to resemble that of her family's surname, yet, in fact she has not been adopted. What about x-spouses not quite out of the home? Any why should foster children have more legal rights than your own father-in-law and step child?
This election could stop the intrusion of government into private relationships by voting new blood like Broker Rick Gillit to City Council. Keep Council out of your homes.
XML Feeds