I considered going on some forums and discussing this, there’s lawyers.com, expertlaw.com, and freeadvice.com.  But I don’t know about the people who hang out on these sites–my experience is there are usually a few know-it-alls who of course don’t know it all.

I need to publicize it and I must improve it.  And I need to write much, much more.  For now my strategy will be post on Yahoo! Voices and Ground Report.  I’ll see if I can build some traffic, solicit some comments, and improve my own understanding.

The right to petition government officials is a fundamental right guaranteed by the First Amendment.  The incorporation doctrine expands this right to the communication with state and other local employees.

These individuals do not have to listen or act, unless…  What if the communication involves a crime and this contact is related to their official capacity and fiduciary duty?

Mark Footer, EPRD Board President

First they allowed a crime to occur.  They did not stop it even though it took place over a period of weeks.  They even say they observed it, although I question whether they paid any attention at all; regardless, they let it happen on their watch.  Next, they were informed about it and they ignored the “tip.”  Not acting on the tip compounds the cover-up.

My guess is Hart Cameron received the tip, went to Scott Robeson, and Robeson said do nothing.

I wrote to Mark Fowler and he did not reply, call, or communicate at all.

Only after I called the state patrol a second time, and they “tagged” the car for removal, did I hear from anyone at the EPRD.  Robeson e-mailed me in what I would characterize as a very disturbing effort to cover his tracks.

Is this latest crime–an abandoned vehicle–so minor that it is not worth all this fuss?  I believe it is a perfect example of the problem.  A crime is a crime and a cover-up is a cover-up.

Now I understand the whole thing:  why there is so much crime on EPRD property, why they did not stop or prevent this incident, why they ignored the tip, and why now they are attempting cover-up their behavior.  It is all consistent with criminals–they are accessories to the crime–and corruption.  Will they learn or change?  That is doubtful:  they have shown no repentance or corrective action and they are still concealing.  So begins the effort to replace Mark Footer.

Mr. Footer/EPRD Board:

Thank you for providing contact names and e-mail addresses on the EPRD webpage.

This is a sad day.

I believe that your organization is attempting to intimidate residents into accepting crime at Stagecoach Park.  I have experienced abuse, broken promises, indefinite delays, or no response at all when raising these issues in the past.

I think it goes without saying that since the EPRD is taxpayer funded and a “subdivision and instrumentality” of the state that you have an obligation to make parks safe, crime-free, and accessible to everyone.

Your organization has the authority to provide security services but you refuse to do so.

Last December I was nearly attacked by a large, illegal (no dogs allowed), off-leash German shepherd dog.  EPRD officials have been asked on numerous occasions to prevent this yet it was allowed this to happen.

Another ongoing problem is driving in no-vehicle areas and vandalizing parking lots (e.g., vehicular figure-eights).  Others have reported these to the sheriff’s department on numerous occasions.

Despite this situation there is still no responsive crime-reporting contact/function for the EPRD.  It is, by statute, the duty of citizens in Colorado to report crime.  How can your organization correct the problem if you do not track, respond-to, and monitor the situation?

Here, please see the e-mail below, is the latest example:

C.R.S. 18-4-512

C.R.S. 42-4-1803

The car is still sitting there, as it has been, for approximately the last month.  How do you know it is not stolen or has a bomb or other danger associated with it?  Assuming it is merely “stored there,” why is this allowed?  Is there any monitoring of the premises?

It is a sad day.  I have already communicated with individuals at the Colorado State Patrol and today I will contact the sheriff’s office.  I have no choice.  It has been reported to the EPRD per the process outlined on your website.  This suggests complicity in the crime.

Thank you for your attention to this very serious, ongoing matter.

Peter Pfeiffer

This is a bizarre story.  He (Rick Curl), the swimming instructor and she (Kelley, then-Davies) the thirteen year-old student began a four-year sexual relationship almost thirty years ago.  They both thought they were (or actually were) in love.  Her parents discovered it through her diary and it was immediately over.

Everyone agreed to conceal it through a written “contract” whereby Curl paid the Davies family $150,000 over the next eleven years.  (Contract is in quotes because it may or may not be proper and binding.)

What hasn’t been explained yet is that the Washington Post inquiry was apparently instigated by a USA Swimming investigation:

Currin said that a USA Swimming investigator contacted her and her parents two months ago. USA Swimming on Monday night initiated a National Board of Review proceeding, requesting an expedited hearing and inviting the alleged victim to testify, according to USA Swimming spokeswoman Jamie Fabos Olsen. Fabos Olsen said the organization moved to take action last Friday after receiving the non-disclosure agreement.

The Sandusky/Penn State scandal notwithstanding it is curious why this has been divulged and publicized now.  The Post has published the entire “confidential” legal agreement!  The comments by Washington Post readers are fascinating–some are intelligent and cover the legal implications of the situation.

My feeling is the contract/agreement is probably void in its entirety in that it deals with concealing a crime (statutory rape).  So, it can, technically, be disclosed.  Nonetheless, it is an untoward revelation for everyone involved–the victim, the predator, the parents, the civil lawyers, and prosecutors and law enforcement personnel.  I think that is why it is a good and provocative story, plus it is one that has legs in terms of subsequent inquiries, perhaps more victims, and even the Olympics.

*           *          *

Perhaps America is waking up from it’s idoltry of people in power.

and

It is irrelevant whether you are gay, straight, bi, etc. Your obligation to respect a child is exactly the same: You don’t take advantage of them even if they are wildly attractive, flirty, experienced, etc. You are the adult entrusted with someone’s kid and you are supposed to protect them and set a good example of ethical behavior, which precludes sexual and/or romantic activity.

Is it just because it is on my mind?  I use the word “corruption.”  It is people in power, people in a position of trust, doing what they want to do rather than what they should do.  It is a failure to see the big picture and to understand the ramifications and consequences.  If they/you do not understand than you must learn (or get out) — that is what is required and expected from you.  It is your job and your responsibility to know better.

They claim they really want story ideas, investigative pursuits, and consumer complaints…

Call7 Investigators (and consumer hotline)

Anastasiya Bolton (9News)

CBS4

The Sony link…

An article about the culture at Newscorp.

Some time ago I wrote quite a bit on the Murdoch scandal but things were lost on theResearchSource.net.  It was bound to get bigger.

Today’s news includes revelations of more prosecutions including those of Rebekah Brooks and Andy Coulson.

The reason it seemed like it would not go away is corruption.  This happens at the highest levels.  And the next stage of illicit behavior is a cover-up.  This too usually happens from the highest level(s).

http://cdpsweb.state.co.us/

http://www.colorado.gov/cs/Satellite/StatePatrol-Main/CBON/1251594471230

http://jeffco.us/sheriff/sheriff_T62_R34.htm (anonymous number)

http://jeffco.us/sheriff/sheriff_T62_R131.htm (why report?)

http://jeffco.us/sheriff/sheriff_T62_R109.htm (traffic)

C.R.S. 18-8-105  Accessory to crime
C.R.S. 18-8-403  Official oppression

C.R.S. 18-8-404  First degree official misconduct

C.R.S. 18-8-706  Retaliation against a witness or victim

Also:
C.R.S. 18-9-117  Unlawful conduct on public property