HomeMy WebLinkAbout20111683.tiff r
(7°7 A,,
41O-5 C t ‘4DISTRICT COURT, WELD COUNTY, COLORADO 1`FelyVk-0-1‘I
DISTRICT
Court address: 901 9th Avenue, P. O. Box 2038 �� ..1 A 1: O
Greeley, Co. 80623 - Ph: 970-351-7300 2 ' ���
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS,
WELD COUNTY, COLORADO
Petitioner, COURT USE ONLY
v.
RIO GRANDE CANYON PROPERTIES, INC.,
a Colorado corporation,
Respondent
v.
BRUCE T. BARKER, STEPHANIE L. ARRIES,
BETHANY SALZMAN,
Third Party Defendants.
Trenton H. Parker,
111 E. Bridge Street, Case No. 11-CV-19
Brighton, Co. 80601 Division: 3
303-654-1048
RIO GRANDE'S NOTICE OF GOVERNMENT IMMUNITY ACT FILING
CONSTITUTIONAL CHALLENGE TO COLORADO'S GOVERNMENT IMMUNITY ACT.
COMES now, Rio Grande Canyon Properties, Inc. ("Rio Grande"), a Colorado
corporation, by its corporate Vice President, Trenton H. Parker ("Parker"), pursuant to
C.R.S. §13-1-127 (1)-(a)-(2), and files the above captioned "Notice" and constitutional
challenge to Colorado's Government immunity Act for all of the following good and
sufficient reasons; To Wit:
NOTICES
1. Rio Grande hereby gives notice to the Court and all parties concerned that, the two (2)
attached GIA Notices of claims against all parties named therein, has been served on Weld
County at the offices of the Weld County Commissioners and on the Weld County Attorney at
the offices of the Weld County Attorney, at Greely, Colorado.
2. Said "Notices" have been timely filed within the 180 day requirement from the time that the
acts complained of occurred, or from the time that the acts complained of were discovered. Rio
Grand hereby incorporates said "Notices" within this case as part of its counter claims against
each Weld County Commissioner and third party Defendants Barker, Arries and Salzman and
moves the Court for admission of said "Notices".
-yam 2011-1683
7- 13-02Ot1 Cc. : OA
-1- O5-It
CONSTITUTIONAL CHALLENGES
Rio Grande hereby challenges the constitutionality of the "Colorado Government
Immunity Act" on the following grounds:
3. Colorado's Government immunity Act as found in C.R.S. 24-10-101 to C.R.S. 24-10-118, is
based on an archaic principle that the king and his servants can do no wrong and therefor
are immune for prosecution or are free from various forms of legal action. The Eleventh
Amendment to the Constitution of the United States supports the principle of sovereign
immunity as it relates to federal jurisdiction over the prosecution of the states of the
Union. In the beginning of the nation's formation, the principle of sovereign immunity
was strictly construed to cover a limited number of"government entites".
4. As time has passed, state and federal government entities have multiplied, and the concept
of sovereign immunity was expanded to include only a select number of government
officials. With the passage of time, more and more government officials were included.
When government employees were allowed to unionize, the government unions lobbied to
have more and more government employee covered under the various state and federal
immunity acts. Currently, every federal agency and every state of the union has some
form of government immunity act covering virtually every government employee.
5. Along with the"immunity acts" came more and more requirements and limitation on the
right of citizens to obtain jurstice over the wrongs done to them by government agents and
employees. In Orwell's book "Animal Farm" the animals rebelled against the farmer and
established a "free farm" and on the barn painted the phrase; "All animals are created
equal.". By the end of the book, the pigs had taken over, backed by the dogs which they
alone raised and the words on the barn had been changed to read; "All animals are
created equal - but some animals are more equal than others.".
6. What has happened with the passage of time is that the government unions, which have
grown from 5% of all union membership to over 60% of all union members, have caused
the government immunity act laws to be written such that there is now a two class system
in the United States and Colorado. The well paid and well protected government
employees making up the "upper class" and the rest of the population making up the
"under class". The Colorado Government Immunity Act is hereby challenged on the
grounds that it has created a special class of people within Colorado, who have a whole
series of special legal rights and privileges which allows them to commit torts and crimes
without facing the same forms of justice as the nongovernmental employees—the "under
class" - in violation of the protected rights covered under the Fifth and Fourteenth
Amendments. Rio Grande intends to supplement the allegations made herein, with a full
legal brief.
WHEREFORE, good cause having been shown,the Defendant moves for admission of Rio
Grande's GIA Notices and hereby challenges the Colorado Government Immunity Act.
By:
Trenton H. Parker, V.P.,
Rio Grande Canyon
Properties, Inc.
VERIFICATION
I, Trenton H. Parker, the undersigned, am the Vice President of Rio Grande Canyon
Properties, Inc., a Colorado corporation and have been authorized to file the attached
"Motion in Case No. 11-CV-19," and being sworn, state : I prepared the attached
Motion and the fact stated therein, are true and correct to the best of my knowledge,
information and belief.
Trenton H. Parker,
Vice President,
Rio Grande Canyon
Properties, Inc.
AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE
The undersigned has this day of 2011 delivered to the offices of
the Weld County Attorney, a full and complete attached Motion in 11CV19, on behalf
of Rio Grande Canyon Properties, Inc.
SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me on this day of , 2011.
WITNESS my hand and official seal.
Notary Public
My commission expires on
NOTICE UNDER THE COLORADO GOVERNMENTAL IMMUNITY ACT
NOTICE OF INTENT TO BRING LEGAL ACTION
Pursuant to C.R.S. 24-10-109(1)
THIS NOTICE IS BEING PROVIDED TO YOU WITHIN THE
180 DAY REQUIREMENT PURSUANT TO C.R.S. 24-10-109(1)
July 2, 2011
From: RIO GRAND CANYON PROPERTIES, INC.
111 E. Bridge Street,
Brighton, Colorado 80601
Trenton H. Parker, In Re: Weld County Commissioners
992 S. 4`° Ave., v.
Suite 100, PMB 222, Rio Grande Canyon Properties
Brighton, Colorado Case No. 2011-CV-19,
2007-CV-189
To: Weld County Commissioners,
in their official and
personal capacities,
David E. Long,
Douglas Rademacher, Copy To; Michelle Raimer
Barbera Kirkmeyer,
Sean P. Conway,
Willliam Garcia; and,
Weld County Attorneys;
in their official and
personal capacities,
CRIMINAL TRESPASSING
Bruce T. Baker,
Stephanie L. Arries &
Bethany Salzman
1. This letter is being written to provide each of the above named commissioners
and attorneys with "NOTICE" that Rio Grande, Trenton H. Parler and Majorie A.
Kessling intends to file suit against the above named parties in order to seek and recover
damages from the above named seven (8) persons for their combined action as against Rio
Grande, Parker and Kessling. This is a notice of criminal trespassing by Bethany
Salzman which was "FIRST DISCOVERED" from documents mailed to Rio Grande by
Stephanie L. Arries, on June 7, 2011. Said documentation related to discovery in
"Commissioners v. Rio Grande, Case No. 11-CV-19. The events and facts stated herein
are also described in Rio Grande's Amended Answer in said case.
4.
2. This notice is being provided to you pursuant to C.R.S. 24-10-109(1). At this time Rio
Grande is being represented by Mr. Trenton H. Parker pursuant to C.R.S. 13-1-127(2).
3. The above eight (8) named person are employed by Weld County, and caused a law
suit to be filed against Rio Grande on or about January 5, 2011 and also caused a Lis
Pendens to be filed against Rio Grand's property without lawful justification, resulting in
acts of Malicious Prosecution against Rio Grande, Contractual Interference with the
marketing, financing and sale of Rio Grande's Weld County ranch property and causing
Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress against Rio Grande's Investors, as stated in
Rio Grande's GIA Notice of July 1, 2011.
4. Weld County's law suit (11-CV-19) is time-barred pursuant to, C.R.S. 30-15-409;
C.R.S. 16-5-401(1)(a); and/or C.R.S. 13-80-102.
5. Notice is given to the above named commissioners that Rio Grande intends to file suit
against the Weld County Commissioners and their respective agents in the United States
District Court for violations of our protected civil and constitutional rights pursuant to
Title 42 U.S.C. §1983 and the United States Constitution, Article III, Section 1.
6. Jurisdiction is conferred on the federal district courts to hear and determine said issue
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1331, 1343 and 2201. Jurisdiction supporting Rio Grande's claims for
attorney fees is conferred on the district court pursuant to 42 U.S.C.§1988. Venue is proper in
the District of Colorado pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1391(b).
7. All of the events being alleged in the above named cases occurred within Weld County,
Colorado, and all of the parties to be named as "Third Party Defendants" are residents of the
state of Colorado. Rio Grande and its investors will be seeking relief against claims of"sovereign
immunity" pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 106 (etal.). Rio Grande and its investors will demand a
jury trial to hear all claims for damages and such other relief as deemed just, fit and reasonable.
8. The actions complained of herein, include "criminal trespassing", "illegal search and
seizure", and "criminal conspiracy" on the part of Barker, Arries and Salzman, and as
against the Weld County Commissioners for their failure to supervise, for gross
negligence and for the willful and wanton disregard of the rights of Rio Grande and its
investors civil and constitutional rights.
9. The amount of monetary damages claimed in any Colorado state matter is the
maximum amount permissible under C.R.S. 24-10-114 ($300,000 at this time of demand)
together with any additional recovery permitted under 42 U.S.C. 1983 et at.
10. The"GIA Notices" provided to Weld County (et.al.) by Marjorie A. Kessling and
Trenton H. Parker dated March 22, 2011 are hereby incorporated into this "Notice" in
full.
•
CLAIMS FOR RELIEF
CRIMINAL TRESPASSING
11. Rio Grande states as follows: Rio Grande is the owner of the subject property referred in
Weld's Complaint 11-CV-19 per Paragraph 4. therein, and has been so since July 14, 2006. Said
property is located in Weld County and consists of approximately 50 acres. Said property has, at
all times since 2000, been completely fenced off from free access by anyone but invitees. Said
property has one gated main entryway which is accessed from a private % mile long dirt road
which is maintained by Rio Grande. Said gate is about'''A mile off WCR 8. "No Trespassing"
signs are clearly posted on said ranch property at the one and only entryway. Said ranch
property has, at all time relevant hereto, been zoned agricultural property pursuant to Title 39-1-
102 (1.6), C.R.S.
12. At all time relevant hereto, Rio Grande's property has had "No Trespassing" signs clearly
posted at the main entryway of said property. At no time has Rio Grand via any of its officers,
stockholders, agents and/or employees ever given Weld County's Commissioners, Weld's Zoning
or Planning Department or any Weld's Zoning Compliance Officer authorization to come on to
said private property under any conditions.
13. Furthermore, no one from Weld County has ever been authorized to enter on to said
property and photograph, video tape or film anything on said property. Rio Grande has never
invited, authorized, allowed or given anyone from Weld County permission to go into any storage
shed, horse trailer, storage trailer, tool trailer, office trailer, motor home, or any vehicle for the
purposes of conducting a search of any kind.
14. Rio Grande alleges that, Bethany Salzman ("Salzman") is a resident of Weld County and is
and has been employed by the Weld County Department of Planning Services as a Zoning Code
Compliance Officer II for at least the past five years. Rio Grande alleges that Weld's Planning
Department and Salzman are under the direction and control of the Weld County
Commissioners.
15. Rio Grande, alleges upon information and belief, along with documented proof that, from the
beginning of June, 2010 to December of 2010, Salzman did knowingly, intentionally, wantonly
and willfully cut Rio Grande's fence, South of its main gate, in order to gain unnoticed and illegal
access to Rio Grande's ranch property for the purposes of conducting a series of unlawful
searches, filming and video taping of said property, and its storage units, office trailer, vehicles,
motor homes and tool sheds.
16. On or about June 15, 2011 Rio Grande received a package of discovery documents and
materials from Attorney Arries. Within said package of documents, was a document titled
"Violation Summary Report." Upon reviewing said document "IT WAS FIRST
DISCOVERED" that on September 29, 2009, Bethany Salzman, with the full knowledge and
approval of Barker and Arries, gained illegal access and trespassed onto the Rio Grande Ranch
Property. Next, Salzman broke into, searched, and photographed the private offices, recreational
trailers, motor homes, storage sheds and other private property items on said ranch property,
without any legal authorization from Rio Grande or any of its officers or directors.
17. At no time did anyone from Rio Grande give Salzman the right to go onto Rio Grande's
property. In her REPORT of 9/29/09 which recounts Salzman's criminal conduct, Salzman make
mention of a "Nick Maegher." Nick Maegher is being sued by Rio Grande for the theft of 50
horse panels valued at $7,500.00.
18. Rio Grande further alleges, upon reason, information and belief that from June of
2010 to December, 2010 - Salzman, on a number of occasions, did knowingly and willfully enter
on to Rio Grande's ranch property without permission for the purposes of photographing, video
taping and filming said property, and the items stored thereon, and the contents therein, and did
knowingly, willfully and intentionally photograph, video tape and film said property, items and
contents and all in violation of C.R.S. 18§4-415. Notice of Salzman's criminal conduct was first
stated in Rio Grande's Amended Answer in Case No. 11-CV-19 dated March 22, 2011.
19. Furthermore, Salzman's criminal conduct constituted an illegal search of said property, its
stored items and their contents. Salzman's criminal acts constituted invasion of privacy and
violated Rio Grande's and its officers' and investors' right to privacy.
20. After Salzman gained illegal access and entry to Rio Grande's property, Salzman did
knowingly and willfully proceed to go into the office trailers, storage units and motor homes,
which were and are situated on said property and proceeded to photograph, video tape and/or
filme the aforesaid entities' exteriors, interiors and contents therein, and thereby, conducted an
illegal search of said premises and items in violation of C.R.S. §18-4-502. First Degree Criminal
Trespass; and a Violation of the rights protected under the Forth Amendment.
21. Salzman's criminal behavior and willful, wanton and outrageous conduct are not protected
under Colorado's Governmental Immunity Act; C.R.S. §§24-10-101 thru 118.
22. The Weld County Commissioners are responsible for the supervision of Weld's Planning
Department and the employees thereunder, and the commissioners failure to supervise the
criminal behavior of Salzman makes them personally liable for Salzman's' criminal conduct both
jointly and individually.
23. The Weld County Commissioners have an ongoing duty to properly supervise employees
under their care, custody and control.
24. The Weld County Commissioners conduct and past negligence is not exempt under,
Colorado's Governmental Immunity Act; C.R.S. §§24-10-101 thru 118.
25. If Jurisdiction exists it would be covered under Colorado's Constitution,
Article, VI§(1).
26. Venue in this matter is proper before the District Court per C.R.C.P. 98 et. sic.
•
27. Rio Grande will seek judgments against Salzman, Barker, and Arries and the Weld County
Commissioners, as follows:
A. Compensatory damages as a jury may deem just, fit and reasonable
B. Punitive damages as a jury may deem just, fit and reasonable
C. All costs associated with the action.
D. Pre-judgment and post judgment interest on any
award of damages to the extent permitted by law; and,
E. And such other and further relief as a court and/or a jury may deem
just, fit, reasonable and appropriate.
By:
Trenton H. Parker
Special Agent,
Rio Grande Canyon
Properties, Inc.
Violation Summary Report
• R
least 1 bus, semi trailers, miscellaneous debris scattered
around the property. See pictures dated 06/22/09
06/26/2009 Phone Call At approximately 2:20 pm I left a message for Trenton
Parker at 303-654-1048 advising him that I would be out of
the office until Wed July 8th. I asked him to call me back
after the 8th and I would be happy to schedule an on-site
inspection with him.
07/23/2009 Phone Call Trenton Parker called and kept saying he was going to kill
the horses and scrap vehicles on the property. I started
recording the conversation about 5 minutes into the phone
call. "TAPED CONVERSATION'"
09/04/2009 Property Inspected Upon a visual inspection of the property from an adjacent
property,the following items were noted: the bank
building has been removed (3 part manufactured
structure). There are still approximately 5 mobile
home/office trailer/constructbn trailer units that were
readily visible. It does appear that he did some clean up
of some of the miscellaneous debris. There was still a
bus and what appeared to be a delivery style box truck
still visible. It was difficult to ascertain what was
Trenton's and what was media vehicles during this
inspection. When I arrived Channel 4, 7&9 were all on
the property. See pictures dated 09/04/09.
09/29/2009 Property Inspected During an on-site inspection with Nick Maegher,Gary
Schwartz and I we discussed the property and what would
be necessary to bring it into compliance. There are
currently approximately 5 mobile homes still situated on
the property, along with semi trailers(no plates),trailers
taken off the wheels and set directly on the ground
(derelict), iron/metal, parts of mobile homes sat on wheels
and made into make shift sheds on wheels. There were
also at least 3 camper/trailer-RV's situated on the
property. It looked like at least 2 of them appeared to be
connected to something. There was a port-a-let(that was
pumped out while we where there). There were 5 dogs.
We discussed the fact that Katie would not be allowed to
continue to live in a camper/trailer on the property. He
asked about the dogs. I asked if someone else could
take care of them while he was Incarcerated. I offered to
call him with Rudy's (scrap iron guys)contact information.
He said that would help.
02/15/2011 Phone Call Stephanie Arries and I(Bethany Salzman)called Marjorie
Kessling(719-937-3329). She had left a voice mail for
Stephanie the afternoon before. Marjorie said that Trenton
asked her to call and see if one of the mobile homes
could be permitted as an office and a motor home as a
dwelling unit. We advised her that a motor home is not an
approved dwelling unit We then discussed the mobile
home. We advised her that he could apply for 1 mobile
home as a dwelling unit, but he would have to prove the
presence of water, septic/sewer and other utilities. We
also explained that we would not issue the building permit
until the property is brought into compliance. She said
she would explain everything to Trenton. She asked
about the court process. Stephanie explained the
process to her. She indicated that she was going to have
a David(old long time friend)come up and submit an
Answer to the court. We asked if she had any other
questions. She said no.
04/13/2011 Property Inspected Upon a visual inspection from a neighboring property, the
. .
NOTICE UNDER THE COLORADO GOVERNMENTAL IMMUNITY ACT
NOTICE OF INTENT TO BRING LEGAL ACTION
Pursuant to C.R.S. 24-10-109(1)
THIS NOTICE IS BEING PROVIDED TO YOU WITHIN THE
180 DAY REQUIREMENT PURSUANT TO C.R.S. 24-10-109(1)
July 1, 2011
From: RIO GRAND CANYON PROPERTIES, INC.
111 E. Bridge Street,
Brighton, Colorado 80601
Trenton H. Parker, In Re: Weld County Commissioners
992 S. 4`h Ave., v.
Suite 100, PMB 222, Rio Grande Canyon Properties
Brighton, Colorado Case No. 2011-CV-19,
2007-CV-189
To: Weld County Commissioners,
in their official and
personal capacities,
David E. Long,
Douglas Rademacher, Copy To; Michelle Raimer
Barbera Kirkmeyer,
Sean P. Conway,
Willliam Garcia; and,
Weld County Attorneys;
in their official and
personal capacities,
Bruce T. Baker, MALICIOUS PROSECUTION
Stephanie L. Arries &
1. This letter is being written to provide each of the above named commissioners
and attorneys with "NOTICE" Rio Grande intends to file suit against the above named
parties in order to seek and recover damages from the above named seven (7) persons for
their combined action as against Rio Grande in the matter of"Board of County
Commissioners v. Rio Grande Canyon Properties, Inc. Case No. 11-CV-19", along with a
recorded Lis Pendens against Rio Grande's ranch property located at "WCR-8 and
Private Road No. 35"- as more fully described in said law suit. The Weld's claims against
Rio Grande are time-barred as put forth in Rio Grande's response in said case.
2. This notice is being provided to you pursuant to C.R.S. 24-10-109(1). At this time Rio
Grande is being represented by Mr. Trenton H. Parker pursuant to C.R.S. 13-1-127(2).
3. The above eight (8) named person are employed by Weld County, and caused a law
suit to be filed against Rio Grande on or about January 5, 2011 and also caused a Lis
Pendens to be filed against Rio Grand's property without lawful justification, resulting in
acts of Malicious Prosecution against Rio Grande, Contractual Interference with the
marketing, financing and sale of Rio Grande's Weld County ranch property and causing
Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress against Rio Grande's Investors, as stated in
Rio Grande's GIA Notice of July 1, 2011.
4. Weld County's law suit (11-CV-19) is time-barred pursuant to, C.R.S. 30-15-409;
C.R.S. 16-5-401(1)(a); and/or C.R.S. 13-80-102.
5. Notice is given to the above named commissioners that Rio Grande intends to file suit
against the Weld County Commissioners and their respective agents in the United States
District Court for violations of our protected civil and constitutional rights pursuant to
Title 42 U.S.C. §1983 and the United States Constitution, Article III, Section 1.
6. Jurisdiction is conferred on the federal district courts to hear and determine said issue
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1331, 1343 and 2201. Jurisdiction supporting Rio Grande's claims for
attorney fees is conferred on the district court pursuant to 42 U.S.C.§1988. Venue is proper in
the District of Colorado pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1391(b).
7. All of the events being alleged in the above named cases occurred within Weld County,
Colorado, and all of the parties to be named as "Third Party Defendants" are residents of the
state of Colorado. Rio Grande and its investors will be seeking relief against claims of"sovereign
immunity" pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 106 (etal.). Rio Grande and its investors will demand a
jury trial to hear all claims for damages and such other relief as deemed just, fit and reasonable.
8. The actions complained of herein, include "criminal trespassing", "illegal search and
seizure", and "criminal conspiracy" on the part of Barker, Arries and Salzman, and as
against the Weld County Commissioners for their failure to supervise, for gross
negligence and for the willful and wanton disregard of the rights of Rio Grande and its
investors civil and constitutional rights.
9. The amount of monetary damages claimed in any Colorado state matter is the
maximum amount permissible under C.R.S. 24-10-114($300,000 at this time of demand)
together with any additional recovery permitted under 42 U.S.C. 1983 et at.
10. The "GIA Notices" provided to Weld County (et.al.) by Marjorie A. Kessling and
Trenton H. Parker dated March 22, 2011 are hereby incorporated into this "Notice" in
full.
11. Rio Grande will seek judgments against Salzman, Barker, and Arries and the Weld County
Commissioners, as follows:
A. Compensatory damages as a jury may deem just, fit and reasonable
B. Punitive damages as a jury may deem just, fit and reasonable
C. All costs associated with the action.
D. Pre-judgment and post judgment interest on any
award of damages to the extent permitted by law; and,
E. And such other and further relief as a court and/or a jury may deem
just, fit, reasonable and appropriate.
By:
Trenton H. Parker
Special Agent,
Rio Grande Canyon
Properties, Inc.
Hello