Social Media
Advertisers
This area does not yet contain any content.
Tuesday
Sep292015

Remembering Mesa Valley D51 Schools 3B Mill Levy Overrride....or Cover for a $109 Million Bond Placement? 

VetTheGov looks back to 2010-2011 when the Mesa Valley D51 was out spending your tax dollars to promote getting more tax dollars from local tax slaves regarding the 3B Mill Levy Override for lack of funding that would close schools immediately. What you weren't told was D51 had $109 Million reasons to beg for more more money. But thanks to a TABOR end around Bond restructure, D51 was bailed out along with the previous Bond holders making bank off of kids so called free educations. The main question needing asked is why didn't D51 save up for the repayment portions due? Simple you can just restructure and kick the can down the road to future generations!

Here we are in 2015 and not one school closed and better yet the movies and coffee we were asked to give up monthly for the mill levy increase, well it simply never applied to D51. Looking over the P-Card purchases during the 2014-2015 school year it appears Starbucks and Regal did just fine. $351.31 spent at local Starbucks and $5,693.45 spent at the local Regal movie theater.  The next question you should start asking the local school board is who controls the P-Card's?

Next up is a new Participation Bond just released this month for another cool $7,355,000! This is where it gets somewhat interesting. On page 54 in this smoke & mirror offering you will notice Total Outstanding DEBT in the form of other recent Bond offerings. These Bonds total $88,200,000.00 or roughly $4,000.00 of Bond Debt per pupil currently enrolled in D51 schools. If you look at the 2011 Bond restructure and payment schedule the local taxpayers will need to hope D51 can structure its finances to take care of the Debt holders first! As of today it appears local taxpayers on the hook to the UNKNOWN investors for $156,462,191.00 until 2024 or $7,111.00 Bond Debt per pupil. Imagine how many Starbucks coffees you could drink or how many Regal movies you could watch each year if you didn't have an $11 Million Bond payment due each year? 

Interesting side note: In 2010 The District 51 Foundation group started in order to attract investment for D51. However in the 2011-2012 CAFR report on page 2 NO funding had been reported through June 30, 2012. Interesting the Foundation had over $74,000 in received funding yet paid $11,268 for marketing only that year. In their 2013 990 filing it shows purchasing Barnes & Nobles Nooks for $49,260 and gifted them to D51.

Wednesday
Sep232015

How to Stop Federal Overreach by challenging Federal Grants into your community!

On September 21, 2015 VetTheGov attended the weekly Mesa County Commissioner meeting to confirm to the commissioners regarding the recent BLM's decision to close 4,000 miles of access to our public lands with zero consideration of petitions otherwise to contest the BLM decision.  During the business considerations a $52,000.00 Federal Grant from Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) was being considered for acceptance.  So VetTheGov stood and asked for the item to be moved to Individual Consideration.  It was moved by the commissioners and the below video will show you how to simply stand up and request specific answers be met.  Well the Grant approval was postponed and VetTheGov has since requested a full accounting of last years funding for the same Federal Grant.  

 

Below you will find the financial docs related to the Federal Grant revenue received and expenditures mostly for the emergency manager Andy Martsolf's paycheck and benefits, vehicle expenses, trips, sit & stand desktop equipment, and his cell phone expense all paid via Mesa County commingled General Funds. 

 

The following information was located from the original FEMA Grant posted online:

1. Have EMAC Membership http://www.fema.gov/pdf/emergency/nrf/EMACoverviewForNRF.pdf

2. Adopt NIMS http://www.fema.gov/national-incident-management-system

3. Adherence to all of the Acts under EHP http://www.fema.gov/media-library-data/1421336453304-d48abd61f8b2a35d2bad325ae49ae531/FP1080231_Environmental_Planning_Historic_Preservation_Policy.pdf & http://www.fema.gov/media-library-data/1388411752234-6ddb79121951a68e9ba036d2569aa488/18Dec13-NoNEPAReview.pdf

4. MUST comply with SAFECOM http://www.dhs.gov/safecom

5. Only 5% of award allowed for Management & Administration expenses.

6. MUST Comply with all of these!!!  http://www.dhs.gov/sites/default/files/publications/FY%2015%20Standard%20TC%20Version%205.1%202015-2-23.pdf

7. Develop and Maintain (long-term) a THIRA https://www.fema.gov/threat-and-hazard-identification-and-risk-assessment

8. Maintain EOP's and update every 2 years https://www.fema.gov/media-library/assets/documents/25975

9. Complete the following Trainings:
In addition to training activities aligned to and addressed in the TEP, all EMPG Program funded
personnel shall complete the following training requirements and record proof of completion:
NIMS Training, Independent Study (IS)100, IS 200, IS 700, and IS 800, and other Independent Study courses identified in FEMA Professional Development Series.
Previous versions of the IS courses meet the NIMS training requirement. A complete list of Independent Study Program
Courses may be found at http://training.fema.gov/is

10. Develop and Maintain the following exercise program: 
All recipients will develop and maintain a progressive exercise program, consistent to the degree practical, with the Homeland Security Exercise and Evaluation Program (HSEEP)
in support of the National Exercise Program (NEP). The NEP is critical to our Nation’s ability to test and validate core capabilities. To this end, grantees are highly encouraged to nominate exercises
into the NEP. For additional information on the NEP, please refer to http://www.fema.gov/national-exercise-program

11. Conduct no less than 4 exercise programs per calendar year and report all trainings and exercises.

12. Adhere to following guidelines:
• Coordination of Investments–resources must be allocated to address the most critical capability needs as identified in their SPR and coordinated among affected preparedness stakeholders.
•Transparency–stakeholders must be provided visibility on how preparedness grant funds are allocated and distributed, and for what purpose.
•Substantive Local Involvement–the tools and processes that are used to inform the critical priorities which DHS/FEMA grants support must include local government representatives. At the
state and regional levels, local risk assessments must be included in the overarching analysis to ensure that all threats and hazards are accounted for.
•Flexibility with Accountability–recognition of unique preparedness gaps at the local level, as well as maintaining and sustaining existing capabilities.
•Support of Regional Coordination–recognition of inter/intra-state partnerships and dependencies at the state and regional levels, and within metropolitan areas.

Mesa County Sheriff's Office responded to the above items with the following statements:

The following topics were specifically addressed by Mr. King in a follow up email exchange with the County Attorney:

1. EMAC Membership: EMAC is a compact that exists between states. The State of Colorado is an EMAC member. No responsive documents.
2. Adopt NIMS: Mesa County adopted NIMS on June 13, 2005 with resolution MCM 2005-097 (Attached)
3. Adherence to Acts under EHP: No responsive documents.
4. SAFECOM. This grant does not provide communication equipment. No responsive documents.
5. M&A: 0% of this grant is applied to M&A. No responsive documents.
6. Compliance with laws: No responsive documents.
7. THIRA: Currently a state requirement. Mesa County's hazard risk assessment is contained within the Hazard Mitigation Plan (Attached).
8. EOP Maintenance: 2013 version of EOP (Attached).
9. Training Requirements: EMPG funded personnel meet training requirements
10. Exercise Program: Training and Exercise plan is included in quarterly report-mesa county-1st qtr 2014 (Attached).
11. Conduct no less than 4 exercise programs per calendar year: This is a State requirement. County requirement is to sponsor or participate in a minimum of 3 exercises.
12. Adhere to guidelines: No responsive documents.

Now here is the complete paper trail all received via CORA request.  As you will see the paper trail deal with the devil is long but in the end all of these Grants wipe away our state and local 10th Amendment controls! 

Monday
Aug312015

UPDATE: Town of Palisade Out of Cash! Obtains $200K Loan!

In a previous story from VetTheGov regarding the progressive march in Palisade to bankruptcy, it was mentioned in a letter from the town treasurer of the looming shortfalls. Instead of cutting overhead and expenses as most businesses do when cash flow troubles begin, the town simply opens up a revolving line of credit for $200K and not one person even shows up and dissents at the board meeting. Things must be on a perfect track for the this small progressive community. Remember town manager Rich Sales has a $91K salary and is just trying to make it to retirement age and then he will pass the mess left behind forward to the next promising progressive. The way the town clerk gets so highly touted in Palisade she might just make for a perfect replacement. With $50K net proceeds touted from another successful festival spending campaign, why the need for more cash infusion? The answer is simple, PAYROLL!



In the meantime watch for the next Grant action in Palisade that will eventually add more to the unsustainable budget woes being felt in the small progressive town of Palisade. Yes it's sad to see but unfortunately this is happening all over the country. No worries as any size government these days are too big to fail and you tax slaves will be on the hook for the next big bailout. Many small businesses have already moved on from the pay to play small community squeeze but somehow the peach town news exploits just keeping singing the progressive praises and surely this will bring in society's best to save this dying "progressive" town.

Picture below from Peach Town News story. How interesting that the Bank of Colorado donates a small portion to receive a larger portion on the local taxpayers backs. Come on Palisade tax slaves, keep a close eye on these gangsters!!! Will any town taxpayer hold the gangsters accountable for the recent $115K check for the fire department that will be used to cover payroll instead of helping the fire district? Is anyone willing to hold any officials accountable these days? So long as the local elite get theirs and a little love is spread around to keep the masses calm and the checks keep coming in from the Feds, well not too much to worry about that a local trip to the Palisade medicinal brownie shop or a bottle of prescription meds can't fix! Enjoy Slavery readers as these gangsters will enjoy very nice retirements!

Mayor Roger Granat, left, and Treasurer Joe Vlach, center, receive a check from Scott Holzschuh of the Colorado National Bank for sponsorship of this year's Ice Cream Social. Thanks for the Ice Cream, Scott! Thanks also to all the growers that donated their deliclious Palisade peaches for our enjoyment. Photo by Bill Hoffmann.

Saturday
Aug292015

Did Commissioner's Scott McInnis & John Justman Violate Open Meeting Law?

In a previous VetTheGov exclusive story regarding an undaunted $250 Million plus stormwater bailout it appears the best way forward is to change the rules when they don't fit your agenda. Commissioner Scott McInnis is very familiar with this playbook after his years in Washington D.C. and along with his protege city councilman Duncan MacArthur, the federal fix is in. Instead of a weekly schedule full of business meetings regarding jobs, the local economy, and the BLM overreach, two of our county commissioners decide to play the smoke & mirror game at the monthly GOP men's meeting on August 25, 2015 with the entire agenda being an elected or appointed GVDD board. 

The most interesting piece to this is that no public announcement was made or posted on the Mesa County website or in the Commissioners calendars shown below. The monthly republicans men's meeting for August not located on the website calendar either as in previous months. Why is a hot potato topic having non-disclosed public meetings with no following of the Open Meeting LAW? Interesting to note the GVDD manager was asked to attend with the intention to discredit the GVDD board structure rather than discuss a positive way forward. Upon entering the room there were the terms Elected vs Appointed on the white board as those in attendance were being versed as to the best way forward. You see Commissioner McGinnis has got this under his direct control and you can see the manipulation and Law violations that he learned in D.C. are working well.  Yet no one in the GOP good ole boy club stepped up and pointed out the law breaking by their local officials occuring in front of their very eyes.  Surely this isn't the first time such an occurrence has happened!  See the unfilled days on the Commissioner's Calendar below. VetTheGov wonders what these elected do during these slow weeks. One thing for sure their government paychecks get cashed!



VetTheGov will breakdown of the Colorado Open Meeting law C.R.S. 24-6-402 using just a couple of paragraphs from the statute:

(1) For the purposes of this section:

(a) "Local public body" means any board, committee, commission, authority, or other advisory, policy-making, rule-making, or formally constituted body of any political subdivision of the state and any public or private entity to which a political subdivision, or an official thereof, has delegated a governmental decision-making function but does not include persons on the administrative staff of the local public body.

(b) "Meeting" means any kind of gathering, convened to discuss public business, in person, by telephone, electronically, or by other means of communication.

(c) "Political subdivision of the state" includes, but is not limited to, any county, city, city and county, town, home rule city, home rule county, home rule city and county, school district, special district, local improvement district, special improvement district, or service district.

(d) "State public body" means any board, committee, commission, or other advisory, policy-making, rule-making, decision-making, or formally constituted body of any state agency, state authority, governing board of a state institution of higher education including the regents of the university of Colorado, a nonprofit corporation incorporated pursuant to section 23-5-121 (2), C.R.S., or the general assembly, and any public or private entity to which the state, or an official thereof, has delegated a governmental decision-making function but does not include persons on the administrative staff of the state public body.

(2) (a) All meetings of two or more members of any state public body at which any public business is discussed or at which any formal action may be taken are declared to be public meetings open to the public at all times.

(b) All meetings of a quorum or three or more members of any local public body, whichever is fewer, at which any public business is discussed or at which any formal action may be taken are declared to be public meetings open to the public at all times.

(c) Any meetings at which the adoption of any proposed policy, position, resolution, rule, regulation, or formal action occurs or at which a majority or quorum of the body is in attendance, or is expected to be in attendance, shall be held only after full and timely notice to the public. In addition to any other means of full and timely notice, a local public body shall be deemed to have given full and timely notice if the notice of the meeting is posted in a designated public place within the boundaries of the local public body no less than twenty-four hours prior to the holding of the meeting. The public place or places for posting such notice shall be designated annually at the local public body's first regular meeting of each calendar year. The posting shall include specific agenda information where possible.

(d) (I) Minutes of any meeting of a state public body shall be taken and promptly recorded, and such records shall be open to public inspection. The minutes of a meeting during which an executive session authorized under subsection (3) of this section is held shall reflect the topic of the discussion at the executive session.

You are beginning to get a glimpse into the local power elites game and how they work and it doesn't include following the Law! Not a surprise to many but it's simply the truth of how government and the cronies work in the shadows. Stay tuned for surely more to come on this misadventure in the shadows.

Friday
Aug142015

EXCLUSIVE: Mesa Valley 5-2-1 Drainage Authority Dysfunction to Cost Taxpayers well over $250 Million?

VetTheGov has received quite a bit of information regarding storm water drainage in the Grand Valley that is set up to be the next big government created problem gone worse only to be fixed by big government imposed taxes. To set the background quickly and to keep the points short since otherwise this hot story would take several parts to get all relevant information out to the public. VetTheGov offers the following information to make your own decision as to who is responsible and ultimately who will pay.

The Grand Valley Drainage District (GVDD) was established in 1915 and has authority over 100 square miles that includes 128+ miles of open drains and 130+ miles of piped drainage facilities according to their About Us web page. The main purpose of the district is to allow excess and runoff water from agricultural irrigation canals to be fed back to the Colorado River thus alleviated high water tables and higher salinity being forced upward to the fertile topsoils. This system has operated well over 100 years until urban development entered the equation along with EPA's Clean Water Act (CWA) which is now in Tier II compliance. So to simplify permitting and to streamline implementation of the Tier II regulations in the valley the 5-2-1 Drainage Authority was established in 2004. VetTheGov must note that the irrigation runoff waters, typically high with Nitrogen/Phosphorus aka Fertilizer, are exempt from the CWA at this point in time.

Since 2004 the entity has not been very effective implementing the requirements of the CWA and therefore caused the current war between GVDD, Mesa County, and all the municipalities included in the 5-2-1 pact. Studies were conducted by the 5-2-1 up until 2009 when then Commissioner Meis stated the county had no more money to fund the studies. The war continues to involve stormwater drainage from all county and municipalities storm runoff of "regulated water" according the CWA into GVDD's piping that currently has over 28 points back into the Colorado River not included natural washes. GVDD has written a multitude of letters to all who will listen and held multiple meetings to gain the attention needed for the existing problems of capacity. GVDD has made it clear to all entities that they will no longer allow storm runoff from the county or the three other municipalities in the valley unless they pay to do so. See letter below from GVDD to Board of County Commissioners dated November 7, 2014 which gives a very telling scenario!



None of the local governments responded to the letters sent by GVDD, so GVDD decided they had the legislative authority to impose storm fees on their own and adopted resolutions 2014-110, 2014-111, and 2014-112 on April 22, 2014 to begin this collection process based on the all the storm water studies conducted in previous years and to help pay for studies never finished since 2009 Commissioner Meis decision along with the several critical upgrades already discovered. GVDD anticipates an additional $2.6 Million in annual collections in which a majority will be saved for future projects and anticipated huge revenue bonds for a federally mandated Municipal Separate Storm Water Systems called an MS4 to be added county wide with current estimates well over $250 Million. This topic will make for interesting debate and likely litigation/mediation since Commissioner Pugliese recently mentioned Mesa County has another $3 Million to trim off of next years budget.

VetTheGov went to the Mesa County site to look for it's Storm Water Management Manual (SWMM) and it linked directly to the City of GJ site for it's municipal codes and so it appears Mesa County has adopted the city's SWMM.  In the city code the following appears in Chapter 28:

28.12.100 Post-construction BMPs.

Mesa County, the City of Grand Junction, the Grand Junction Drainage District, and the Town of Palisade, who are members of the Drainage Authority, have obtained permits to discharge stormwater under the Colorado Discharge Permit System (permit numbers COR-090031, COR-090077, COR-090006, and COR-090005, respectively). The terms and conditions of the permits set forth minimum requirements for stormwater management programs including construction site stormwater runoff control and post-construction stormwater management for new development and redevelopment to reduce pollutants in all stormwater runoff to the MS4

This is a telling code as well:

28.52.010 Introduction.

A large number of agricultural irrigation facilities exist in Mesa County, and many have historically intercepted runoff from rural and agricultural areas with little consequence. However, the development (urbanization) of these areas results in storm runoff of much higher peak flows and larger total volumes. In addition, water quality of the runoff is often adversely impacted by this urbanization. As a result, the traditional practice of utilizing irrigation ditches, drains, and reservoirs for stormwater control must be reexamined on a case-by-case basis.

A question to consider asking the city and county is for actual documentation of the MS4's mentioned in the city code as the definition states the MS4's are owned and operated by the city or county. It is clear with this issue at hand neither the city or county own or operate an MS4 system.

Now imagine, if you will, you are an elected official running for re-election and this hits your radar screen. Well you have the safe non-election year officials step up and play the smoke & mirrors game and then blast it off the radar screens until folks get their new tax bills from GVDD and the real rage begins. By then the elected are hoping their paychecks are solidified in re-election bids and the smoke & mirror capers complete the deflection of bad news for the local tax slaves up until this moment. Hence we move on to the smoke & mirror capers, county commissioner Scott McInnis and city councilman Duncan McArthur.

In response to the GVDD's multiple attempts to get the City of GJ and Mesa County's attention, the below letters were drafted by Scott McInnis and Duncan McArthur using their grandiose titles but not on city or county letterhead. Interesting to note these letters were emailed using the Mesa County administrative assistant Stephanie Reecy. The letters by McInnis and McArthur suggest that our state elected offer new state legislation to fix years of kicking the can down the road and let the next generation deal with the past and current poor management decisions of an out of control clueless government. Sound familiar? See the letters below and a follow-up clarification email to the entire council by McArthur explaining why he took the lead speaking on behalf of the city council. There is no doubt McArthur and McInnis have put the city council and county commissioner board and the local tax slaves in a very interesting position and will be fun to follow the street sweepers on this one. 

Date: Fri, Aug 14, 2015 at 2:01 PM -0700
Subject: Fwd: GVDD's Letter
To: "Barbara Traylor Smith" , "Belinda White" , "Bennett Boeschenstein" , "Chris Kennedy" , "Duncan McArthur" , "John Shaver" , "Martin Chazen" , "Phyllis Norris" , "Rick Taggart" , "Sam Rainguet" , "Tim Moore" , "Shaunalee Kronkright"

Good Afternoon,

I believe that you have all received a letter from GVDD discussing their fee. In that letter, they mentioned me personally and attributed an erroneous comment that I supposedly made so this email is to correct that statement.

I did make a presentation to WCCA's Board about Commissioner McInnis and I seeking support to have the legislators consider changing GVDD's current form of governance to one that is more representative. In that presentation, I made no criticism of the GVDD Board's competency. My comments has always been that we have an agency that is seeking to collect and spend over $60 million over the next 20 years with effectively no oversight. I also mentioned that, under the current form of governance, GVDD mis-managed its mill levy over the years costing the District millions but that is a matter of record and has even been acknowledged by former District representatives. Both Commissioner McInnis and I have repeatedly stated that we are not saying anyone has done anything wrong. But an organization with over $100 million in assets seeking to collect and spend over $60 million without any effective oversight is a recipe for problems.

With all that being said, you will received a letter this afternoon, if you have not already received it, recommending that the issue of governance be referred to DOLA to study the issue and make their recommendation to the legislators on how the District would best be governed. This takes the political jabs and egos out of the question because that is not what this is all about. It is about how best to serve the citizens of this valley.

Thanks you.

Duncan McArthur

McArthur's email proves he has only his best interest in mind as he wants to push these hard decisions over to DOLA and the state elected to get this hot topic away from local media and tax payer attention and appoint their own hand picked board to continue the kicking of the can down the road. This is the City's sudden Resolution to be adopted here and not sure if ever approved or voted upon. Without the ability to develop land any further due to storm runoff drainage MS4 issue it begins to put strain on builders and real estate agents and of course higher tax bases with the possibilities for the city to ignore their very own codes. 

Scott McInnis attended a meeting with GVDD on January 24, 2015 and asked GVDD for two months to get his technical information together and to get the buy in from Commissioner's Justman and Pugliese. Scott McInnis then instructs county employee Julie Constan to begin a white paper crusade to convince the other commissioners. However five months later the 5-2-1 is being resurrected to its original dysfunctional state but with the added two politically appointed members. Leave no doubt the progressive big government types already sitting on the 5-2-1 board will leave a legacy for the many future tax slaves that will pay dearly for this Juntion Dysfunction!

The concept offered by McInnis and McArthur, who sit on the current appointed 5-2-1 board, is to continue the 5-2-1 dysfunction by adding two more to the board making five that will be all be appointed via the good ole boy political network that always take care of friends in the mesa county elite ranks. Since Scott McInnis now has $500K to contribute to the valley via his 10-year Western Way PAC funding, he could play savior for the 5-2-1's poor planning since its inception. So far from the recent PAC pay outs it appears local bank fees, investment gain taxes, CMU, cell phone calls, and recently Patrick Davis of "Colorado Liberty Alliance" for $15,000.00 are the token winners so far. Side Note VetTheGov found this interesting article about the Colorado Liberty Alliance as a hit tool used to take out TEA party candidates within the republican party and specifically Marsha Looper who was running against Amy Stephens aka"Amycare" who gave us our current bankrupt and high cost federal healthcare exchange in Colorado. 

VetTheGov will keep all you tax slaves up to date in the upcoming weeks as this surely will play out as one of the biggest political power plays to date in Mesa County. The below picture taken by VetTheGov shows a drain on a Mesa County residential road that has not been cleaned or swept all year which proves at least the 5-2-1 is another government failure! VetTheGov dedicates the drain and names it on behalf of all tax slaves in the valley the McInnis-McArthur Drainage District Trophy Drain since without a doubt these two officials will save us all from the impending implosion. No worries because all these characters are protected by the Government Immunity Act. This will all end with a call for help to Washington D.C. that will keep the Grand Valley under Federal Rule and prove the bigger question of why the local tax slaves need any local officials at all! Stay tuned more to come!

 

Monday
Aug032015

Town of Palisade Provides No Local Police Coverage between 3AM and 7AM Daily

The Town of Palisade currently offers no local police protection between the hours of 3AM to 7AM? daily!

Case in Point

On Thursday July 30th, 2015 a burglar alarm was activated at 105 Stump Ct. Palisade, CO at 6:20AM in which Mesa County Sheriff's Office dispatched a patrol deputy to investigate. The deputy arrived over an hour and a half later well past the 7AM local Palisade police coverage. Luckily the result was a false alarm for business owner JJ Fletcher who made the following statement: "We need better coverage within the Town of Palisade. What are we getting for our tax dollars being paid out?"

VetTheGov asked Mr. Fletcher to call the dispatch non-emergency number and ask why the county responded versus the local police. After several pass the buck phone calls with no real answers given, the town police department admitted no coverage to the citizens of Palisade between the hours of 3AM and 7AM daily.

This simple little alarm call shows miscommunication between the local police department and the Mesa County Sheriff's Office since the call should have switched over at 7AM when the local police where on duty. It also leaves a gap of ZERO local police protection if a county deputy has to travel far from his jurisdiction to answer a call in Palisade. What if this were a real emergency or burglary in progress?

If the Town of Palisade can't provide the most requested and needed service to protect it's citizens within town limits, it might be time for these taxpayers to ask some very tough questions of their towns highly paid leadership and what services they actually receive. Stay tuned as VetTheGov will provide CORA request into how many calls for service happen between these gaps of no service.

Friday
Jul312015

Breaking: City of Grand Junction Elizabeth Tice Separation Agreement

VetTheGov just received details regarding the $125,000.00 City of Grand Junction separation agreement as embeded below.  The agreement confirms there is an ongoing investigation into the Human Resources Director Claudia Hazelhurst and City Attorney John Shaver among others.  Stay tuned as surely more payouts for taxpayers ahead!

 

Thursday
Jul302015

BREAKING: Town of Palisade lacking Cash Flow! Loan Needed to Stay Afloat!

Since VetTheGov has been following the Progressive Town Government in Palisade and their ever desire to Bankrupt the town, it appears by the recent disclosed treasurer's report, reality is setting in and no thanks to marijuana, alcohol, and all the wonderful town events to save the inevitable.  The simple truth is that the town's overhead is way too high for such a small town.  With high salaries, endless personnel issues, and cash losing main events that apparently aren't bringing in the revenue the town so claims, and businesses that see a town government out of control packing up and moving out there is great trouble ahead for this community!

If you run your business like the town runs its business and this news hits, more than likely you would be contacting a bankruptcy attorney or simply doing what most businesses do when cash runs short, cutting expenses fast and furious.  However in a progressive Utopia you just simply double down on spending as noted in the treasurer's report and continue hiring and pillaging the community trough of tax funds.  

See the July 28, 2015 treasurer's report below:

 

Where Palisade is the Fiscal responsibility of your tax dollars???  

Friday
Jun192015

Town of Palisade Progressive Government continues to Stifle their local Business Community

Since VetTheGov has been following the Town of Palisade it has become more and more apparent that the town's progressive socialist patterns are scaring business and tourist away from their Main St and unfriendly business environment. Stir in cozy relationships within the town board, chamber of commerce, and of course the local newspaper and you have the perfect Utopia being set in place. However for business owners in the downtown Main St. area such as the Rose Cafe and Palisade Cafe & Grill, selling out is the only escape plan away from higher local city taxes and regulations. Add in a few more wineries and rumors of additional businesses coming up for sale; typical government employees with no understanding of business; the outlook shapes up for another bankrupted city added to the list of many others. Follow this link to local business properties listed for sale in Palisade and ask yourself why so many are running away from this town.

If one just follows the progressive movement not only in the USA but Africa, Russia, and China, it doesn't take long to realize growing the local town government coffers, collecting paychecks not obtainable in any other similar job functions, and taking care of close friends are top strategies in this little peach town government! Just follow the town administrator originally from Delta and look at the trophy buildings and projects left in their wakes. Yes these trophies are losing hand over fist. The Delta golf course and the towns Rec center continue to lose money. Heck they are still trying to find a high dollar town manager to continue the plunder of local businesses and tax payers. Good Luck Delta but surely they will find a really well versed participant in sustainable government through revenue generation. 

As for the Town of Palisade they have their man and their board well positioned for the ultimate progressive government Utopia. They got rid of the police chief who surely didn't have similar progressive ideas but possibly frightened the town with too much force so the progressive game plan needed softened for the moment. History however will prove heavy handed tactics will continue against those opposed to the plan and many will just give up fighting the progressive machine and move on. Sprinkle in the hiring of Zach Adams to the police department whose mother is Jullian Adams, executive director of the palisade chamber of commerce and member of the town's tourism board and writer for the peach town news, along with Dave Parsons the common law husband to Robynn Sundermeier-Town Trustee, hired on to the town public works department. Note how progressives in positions of power take care of those very close and of course always on the tax payers dime. 

Follow the trio of Rich Sales-town manager, David Edwards-mayor pro tem, and his "partner" Bill Hoffman-guest writer for the Peach Town news to the 2015 annual Colorado Municipal League conference and the private plan continues forth as these convenient relationships learn more and more central progressive planning at this event. These three have taken this road trip together for the past several years. Hmmmm...One must wonder since Bill Hoffmann is not an employee for the town why he shows on the CML conference roster as representing the town. The bigger question would be who paid for Bill's trip? Surely not a cheap one and VetTheGov figures around $5K tax dollars spent for the trio! 

At the CML conference Rich Sales was a presentor for the following session:

Economic Development for Small Communities BRR Breckenridge Ballroom Peak 17 Learn how small- to medium-sized Colorado municipalities can excel at economic development. This session will focus on urban renewal, strategic planning and vision, marketing and leveraging resources, and utilizing existing opportunities as a starting point. Presenters: Brandy Reitter, Buena Vista town administrator; Richard Sales, Palisade town administrator; Monty Torres, Brush! town administrator; Sheryl Trent, Evans economic development director

What a wonderful time these men must have had this past week hanging out in Breckenridge sharing so much valued information of running down a small town with progressive teaching sessions! Wondering what the comprehensive game plan will be moving forward? Revenue Generation will obviously be the highest priority in the coming months. Understand the sessions language by Rich Sales presentation is geared towards growing government and not getting out of its own way. Very Telling Picture in Progressive Palisade!!! 

VetTheGov is betting this below session was attended by all three.

Privileges Under the Colorado Open Records Act (Advanced session) DT Columbine Ballroom A–C Arranged by the Attorneys Section Municipalities routinely receive requests for records that may be protected by a privilege, such as the work product, deliberative process, or attorney–client privilege. Sometimes the records are marked as “confidential,” “trade secret,” or “proprietary.” Join veteran municipal attorneys as they discuss privileges and trade secrets under the Colorado Open Records Act. Presenters: Kendra Carberry, Hoffmann Parker Wilson & Carberry PC; Kathleen Kelly, Light Kelly PC; Geoff Wilson, CML general counsel CLE accredited.

In discussing the current economic flavor from local Palisade businesses, the growing theme is that the town government leaders refuse to listen to any of the non-favored local conservative businesses on ideas to help stimulate the local economy. One has to wonder in the progressive utopia of Palisade if the leaders are just looking for their own personal stimulation. Remember anything goes within the walls of Palisade government as noted in this earlier story

In this Grand Junction Sentinel article back from 2011 where mayor pro tem made the following statement:
“We just want activity downtown, and it concerns me when there are that many businesses that are empty,” 

Well mayor pro tem it doesn't sound like much has changed! It's no wonder the mayor pro tem is looking for legal and illegal activity to come to Palisade. Mayor pro tem if you really want activity in the downtown streets simply remove the huge tax and regulation barriers for local businesses. Remove government employees and trustees with chips on their shoulders that shrug off the local business owners. Most of all comprehend that all of these businesses make the money for everyone's checks within the walls of the progressive government utopia being built in Palisade since they and only they create the goods and services that the town taxes by force! 

Saturday
Jun132015

Update: Governor Hickenlooper's "$10+ Billion Custodial Slush Fund" has no Legislative Oversight

In VetTheGov's previous story regarding budgets not matching actuals by a long shot, VetTheGov sent out a few emails to find out answers. A quick reminder back in 2011-2012 Colorado state budget was set at around $20.5 Billion yet the actual spending authority showed $34 Billion with actual spending at $28.7 Billion. Here are a couple of email strings VetTheGov received back:

Ray,

I suspect this larger number comes from continuous appropriation authority, mostly of Federal $'s that come into the state.

Director Ziegler had this to say in part:

“Items that are continuously appropriated by Constitutional, State, or Federal law.  While these items are technically "appropriated", they are not necessarily appropriated every year and therefore, may be off-budget.  The Controller would still, I assume, reflect the estimated budget amount that was not in a specific bill and the actual amounts expended in any given year.  This could cause a difference between the amount reflected in the Long Bill as a budget and the amount  reflected in this report.”

Either way, the legislature only appropriated $19.5B in 11-12, and only $7B of that was General Fund.

After a very cursory look at the differences most of the discrepancy is within the cash funds. I’ll have to look into more.

*Senator Kevin Grantham*

Colorado State Senate District 2

P.O. Box 1383

Cañon City, CO 81215

(719) 431-0111

www.kevingrantham.com

It appears based on initial responses our Legislators didn't have much of a clue as to the Governors executive branch having this much spending authority and actually stated it might be because the Cash Fund had discrepancies. Senator Grantham serves on the Joint Budget Committee and hopefully he gets back to VetTheGov regarding the cash. Director John Zieglar, mentioned in Senator Grantham's email, is the Director of the Joint Budget Committee and his department in 2011-2012 had a $1.517 Million budget and spent every dime. VetTheGov not satisfied with the answer received from Senator Grantham sent an email to the State Controller's office specifically to Bob Jaros head of the department and here was the response from his office:

Thanks for your inquiry.  The budget-to-actual schedules are inclusive of both the legislative budget (i.e., the Long Bill) and non-legislative budgets.  Non-legislative budgets include items such as custodial budgets for federal funds beyond those identified in the the Long Bill and statutorily authorized activity not subject to appropriation such as payments for unemployment claims.  Please let me know if you have any additional questions.

Tammy Nelson
Financial Analysis & Reporting Director

So VetTheGov searched back through the 2011-2012 actual budget and searched all line items with the terms custodial and found these located in the Cash Fund under Department of Law and Public Safety but only account for approximately $10 Million. Seems there is around $9.99 Billion of slush nowhere labeled Custodial. VetTheGov then looked under the Unemployment Federally Funded portion of the actuals and found almost $1 Billion in federal spending for this category but still $8.99 Billion of non-appropriated slush funding all under the control of the Executive branch. It's no wonder the contested races for Governorship cost so much to gain entry to the slush cookie jar fund!

Back in 1990 then Governor of Colorado Romer wrote a letter to then Attorney General Woodard specifically asking for a decision of authority over Custodial funding. The communication which can be found here is also included below from the Analysis and Summary portion of the decision.

QUESTION PRESENTED AND CONCLUSION

Is the Legislature's plenary power of appropriation limited with respect to custodial funds received by the executive branch of government?

Yes. The legislative power of appropriation does not extend to those funds for which the executive branch serves as a custodian or trustee for limited purposes.

ANALYSIS

It is an axiom that the power of the General Assembly over appropriations of state funds is plenary, subject only to constitutional limitations. Colorado General Assembly v. Lamm, 704 P.2d 1371, 1380 (Colo. 1985); Anderson v. Lamm, 195 Colo. 437, 579 P.2d 620, 623 (1978); MacManus v. Love, 179 Colo. 218, 499 P.2d 609, 610 (1972). Article III of the Colorado Constitution requires separation of the respective powers of the legislative and executive branches. This constitutional provision has been interpreted to prohibit the Legislature from exercising its budgetary powers to interfere with the executive responsibility for administering state government. Anderson v. Lamm, supra.

The boundary between the respective powers of the legislative and executive branches is not a clearly fixed frontier. Court decisions which have found violations of Article III have considered the circumstances of each alleged incursion on a case-by-case basis and identified attempts by one branch of government to usurp fundamental powers of another branch.

In a series of cases spanning a dozen years, the Colorado Supreme Court delineated a narrow class of funds administered by State government which fall outside the broad sweep of the legislative power of appropriation. At one point in time this exception was defined to comprise federal grant funds received by the state to carry out federal programs. See Anderson v. Lamm, supra; MacManus v. Love, supra. In 1985 the court clarified that the key to this controversy was not whether particular funds derived from a federal source or a private source, but whether "the role of the state in administering the fund, as determined by the external source generating the revenue, was essentially custodial in nature." Colorado General Assembly v. Lamm, 700 P.2d 508, 525 (Colo. 1985).

In its most recent, and most exhaustive, discussion of this topic, the court expanded upon this theme. It is the nature of the restrictions upon the funds, and not their source, that determines whether the legislature constitutionally may control expenditures through the appropriation process. Colorado General Assembly v. Lamm, 738 P.2d 1156 (Colo. 1987). There the court minutely examined the nature of the restrictions found in several federal block grant programs enacted during the Reagan administration. As a general rule, those grant programs permitted the state considerable discretion to choose the specific objectives for which federal funds would be spent to further particular federal goals. The governor, the court held, possesses constitutional authority to make specific staffing and resource allocation decisions among several options which are consistent with federal purposes. The executive role with respect to block grant funds amounted to administering a fund that was essentially custodial in nature. 738 P.2d at 1173.

But the governor's authority to expend federal block grants is subject to limitations as well. The court concluded that legislative appropriation was required where federal law permitted the state to transfer funds from one block grant program to another. The degree of flexibility permitted the state by federal law in those circumstances was held to be inconsistent with a mere custodial role. Even though the source of the funds was the federal government and the ultimate beneficiaries were not state agencies, the legislature had constitutional authority to appropriate such transfers, subject to gubernatorial veto. 738 P.2d at 1173.

The cases discussed above provide parameters to the respective powers of the legislature and the governor. The circumstances of each case provide examples of instances where the Colorado Supreme Court has found that one branch has gone too far by interfering with fundamental functions of another branch. They do not provide a formula for determining whether other funds for which the State has responsibility are custodial. Future determinations must turn on a careful examination of the nature of the specific funds, starting with the terms under which they have been provided to the state.

In the first General Assembly v. Lamm decision, the Colorado Supreme Court set out the following definition of "custodial funds":

funds not generated by tax revenues which are given to the state for particular purposes and of which the state is a custodian or trustee to carry out the purposes for which the sums have been provided....

700 P.2d at 524. Central to the court's concept of custodial funds is a requirement that the state's role must be that of a guardian or safekeeper of funds, rather than the outright owner of the moneys. Compare Webster's Third New International Dictionary at 559 (1971) ("custodial" is defined as "relating to or marked by guardianship or maintaining safely"). The governor's ability to expend such funds in the absence of legislative appropriation is premised on his limited role to administer expenditure of the moneys consistent with policy directives imposed by the source of the funds. If those policy decisions have not been made, then legislative appropriation is necessary. Otherwise, the governor improperly would be exercising a legislative function.

If the state itself generates funds, whether by tax revenues, user fees or otherwise, it becomes very difficult to sustain the argument that state government acts simply as a custodian. Similarly, if moneys are provided voluntarily to the state from an outside source without restriction on their use, then it is constitutionally necessary that the legislature make expenditure decisions through the appropriation process.

One example of custodial funds apart from the federal grant context, is the situation where moneys are provided to the state subject to an express or constructive trust to be expended for a designated objective, e.g., erection of a monument or purchase of a work of art. The state is free to decline such a gift. However, once it has accepted the gift and its terms, then state government is obligated to satisfy the restrictions as a condition of expenditure. Under those circumstances the executive branch functions as a custodian to administer the funds consistent with the terms of the donation. Legislative appropriation is not required.

This analysis also applies to state recoveries of money through litigation pursuant to state or federal law. Court judgments which award the state general damages or attorneys fees and costs pursuant to federal or state law ordinarily amount to a form of unconditional compensation to the state that is subject to the legislative power to appropriate or to make statutory provision for expenditure. In certain instances, however, the terms of the court order may specify that recoveries are intended to benefit a certain class or are intended for use for specified purposes (e.g., establishment of a trust fund to return money to defrauded consumers or to benefit persons similarly situated through future enforcement of consumer laws). In such instances, restricted court awards may properly be considered custodial funds not subject to appropriation.

This is not to say that the General Assembly has no role whatsoever concerning expenditures of custodial funds. In the course of the state's budget process the General Assembly may request information on the use of custodial funds by executive agencies in order to determine allocations of other appropriated funds. However, the legislature may not redefine custodial funds in a manner inconsistent with the decisions of the judicial branch. Expenditures of custodial funds by state agencies are subject to financial audit by the state auditor under his constitutional and statutory authority. See Section 2-3-103, C.R.S. (1990 Supp.); Colo. Const. art. V, Section 49. Since custodial funds are the responsibility of state government to administer, expenditures normally will be subject to the general statutory requirements that pertain to spending other types of state funds (e.g., the fiscal rules, personnel laws and procurement code requirements).

Authority to expend custodial funds does not expand the substantive powers of a state official or agency beyond those already conferred by statute or constitution. As a general rule an executive agency may not use custodial funds to engage in programs for which it has no existing statutory or constitutional authority. Where the scope of statutory powers is in doubt, the General Assembly retains the power to enact legislation precluding an executive agency from engaging in specified activities or programs, regardless whether funded by custodial funds or otherwise. Passage of such legislation would, of course, be subject to the gubernatorial veto power.

SUMMARY

Since your letter did not raise any particular disputed situation, I have discussed the principles governing expenditures of custodial funds in very general terms. The key lesson is that custodial funds amount to a very narrow exception to the general constitutional requirement of legislative appropriation. Any claim that specific funding is not subject to appropriation must be carefully examined in light of each set of particular circumstances. Ordinarily a presumption exists that appropriation is necessary until the contrary is established. Should you wish an opinion concerning a specific situation, it would be appropriate to examine those facts in a separate opinion.

Now you have the full picture of the huge cookie jar in Colorado! The question becomes, is it time for your elected Legislator's to challenge the Custodial Taxpayer Slush Fund of the Executive Branch and the Governor's use at his discretion? Thanks for reading and hope this was educational and informative! 

 

Thursday
Jun112015

Breaking: Q & A with GJPD Chief Camper & MCSO Sheriff Lewis regarding Federal Overreach

VetTheGov was invited to attend a meeting put together by former sheriff candidate Mike Harlow on June 10, 2015 at 1PM with Grand Junction Police Chief Camper and Mesa County Sheriff Matt Lewis. VetTheGov asked permission to record the interview and it was agreed to by Chief Camper and Sheriff Lewis. With permission by Mike Harlow I have included his transcript from the interview along with the questions and answers received by both law enforcement leaders in Mesa County and the actual voice recording of the interview.

APOCALYPTIC ADVISER #57

Under Achievers;

Some of you Mesa County types may recall my recommending that SOMEONE should call the Chief of Grand Junction PD and the Mesa County Sheriff and arrange a meeting to learn who's side they would take not if but WHEN the excrement hits the rotary air impeller. Well I noticed how nobody got it done, so I did it myself fully expecting to be snubbed. Well, first I went to the PD unannounced and Chief John Camper saw me. I expressed concerns and told him of a similar meeting with Sheriff Hilkey 3 years ago. I asked the Chief the same question I asked Hilkey which was if given an order to collect guns in Mesa County would you follow such an order? Both Hilkey (three years ago) and Chief Camper (one month ago) answered, absolutely not. A lot of water went over the dam since then with much new political news not the least of which was Jade Helm so I put out the word I'd like another meeting with both the Chief and the new Sheriff, Matt Lewis. It happened one hour ago. Myself, Jim Hass (JJ), Carolyn Patton (TEA PARTY PRES.) Newsman, Kevin King and Lynn Hoff attended the meeting at the GJPD. I had 25 prepared questions for them. I first read a prepared page relating new and urgent Points Of Concern so they'd know why I was asking such serious questions. Below, I'll add the Points Of Concern letter and the questions asked with the scores of both the Chief and the Sheriff for you perusal.

Points Of Concern

Obama was Endorsed By the National Association Of Police Organizations in 2012. Also in the 2012 election, votes were counted by international criminal, George Soros. While running for president, Senator Obama announced the need for an “internal Security Force” as well equipped and well funded as the military. In an emergency which only he can declare, Obama can implement martial law, seize all the water, food, fuel, farm produce, factory produce, electricity. He can shut off the internet, telephones, TV, transportation and radio. He can conscript anyone for any job. He can without probable cause, arrest anyone and lock them up indefinitely without a trial, by simply calling them a terrorist. With Obama's sanction, Eric Holder orchestrated operation Fast & Furious where 2500 combat rifles were purchased with American taxes and walked strait to murdering drug cartels in Mexico. With these weapons, three thousand murders resulted to include Border Patrol Agent Bryan Terry. The idea was to blame the carnage on lax U.S. gun laws with the object being “Gun Control” which is a code word for people control. Obamacare is “extortion” complete with punishment for not buying something against your will. He said; If you like your doctor, keep him. If you like your healthcare plan, keep it. BLM stands for Bureau of Land Management. They are managers. They OWN nothing. Not one square inch of land anywhere. They are denying the public, access to the public lands. They are routinely calling these public lands BLM lands. I watched it happen during the trial of David Justice and no, I don't support him. BLM herded cattle with helicopters killing several. BLM pointed loaded guns at peaceful protesters and threatened to blow them away. When citizen guns were pointed back at them, they made a strategic advance to the rear in the “Interest Of Safety” (their own). This was done when they realized they weren't taking candy from a baby. For the record, the Bundy Ranch Incident was the second time in U.S. history where the second amendment was used as a last resort check on an out of control government. The first utilization was at the “Battle Of Athens”. It was in Tennessee just after WWII. They made a movie about it. The Bundy Ranch was diffused not because of anything done by BLM. It was diffused by armed militias who displayed incredible restraint. Of course militias have been painted by left wing propaganda as being out of control loose cannons owning “too many guns”. The current favorite term used to categorize anyone disagreeing with the commucrats, is of course “Right Wing Extremist”. Nowadays one need not be a commucrat to use this term. You may also call yourself a “Progressive”. Webster backs me up when I point this out to be a sugar coated euphemism for communist. When Obama was ordered by a judge to produce his American birth certificate, the only thing produced was a certified forgery made on an ink jet printer. This president has on numerous occasions given cash and weapons to enemies. This is treason. He has a long record of protecting Muslims. He tells us not to jump to conclusions about Muslim terrorists on American soil killing Americans after he jumped to a conclusion about the police reacting stupidly in the case of his pal the college professor. This list of Points Of Concern is by no means a complete list but it sure points to someone in the white House as being a criminal; fraud, hypocrite, traitor, serial liar and racist. He's getting a free ride because one of his parents was black. Anyone who disagrees with him is painted as a racist by the Obamabots in the media.

I'm not here to lead the charge over the white house fence. That's a job for the congress, supreme court and Joint Chiefs. The combined testosterone of this triad would not fill a thimble but hope springs eternal. It's my belief that the greatest hope we have of getting rid of this guy and saving this republic from a communist take over, lies with the Constitutional Sheriffs. It started here in Colorado. It then spread to Utah and is now going national. God Bless them for they refuse to enforce unconstitutional laws. They point out that they don't work for the federal government. They work for the people who elected them, us. This is not the case with any of the federal cop shops. Virtually all of them fall under DHS and frankly, that is scary. The feds to include the over rated FBI, are routinely violating the very document they swore an oath to protect. I'm not reporting something I heard or read. I witnessed it when I was a cop. When I pointed to their actions as raping the constitution, it just resulted in a smirk and the following comment: Don't sweat it Harlow. We're not raping the constitution. We're just giving her what she secretly wants. Janet Napolitano announced Janet Reno's findings through FBI 'that patriots would now be reclassified as the most likely group to go rogue and commit acts of terrorism against their own country. Having a flag outside your house, taking the bible too seriously, having too many guns, wearing NRA hats, being a veteran, a catholic, an evangelical or a “RETIRED COP” made you a likely candidate to become a terrorist. I suggest you never retire, lest you join me on the “Red List”. Napolitano was asked why the billions of rounds were being purchased? She casually answered they were expecting a revolution. This was the first time I heard the word revolution uttered in reference to our present situation and it wasn't by the “extreme right wing” but by the extreme left wing who are conducting a communist take over of this country. FEMA camps exist and can be found all over the country. These points do not sound like a government of, by and for the people. It sounds more like a government of, by and for the government. It does NOT sound like a symbiotic relationship between the government and the governed. Predictably, our concern is at a high level, so of course questions are in order. Some are my own. Some were submitted by others. I asked one of them of Stan Hilkey years ago and recently of Chief John Camper. There is a very real fear that one day soon, the ruler will announce yet another executive order that “IN THE INTEREST OF SAFETY”, guns will now be confiscated. Some one will get this assignment. It may be any agency under DHS or it may fall to local cops. YES or NO answers are required followed by short explanations at your option. We realize these are tough questions and hope you realize they are justified by the Points Of Concern I just read to you. At the top of the question list is;

1. If ordered to confiscate guns (in violation of the Constitution which you swore an oath to defend against all enemies both foreign and domestic), will you obey such an order? YES or NO? (Chief-NO....Sheriff-NO) good

2. If ordered to assist federal cops, troops, foreign troops or the UN to enforce this criminal act, will you assist? YES or NO? (Chief-NO....Sheriff-NO)good

3. If ordered to step aside or stand down so the order can be implemented, will you step aside or stand down? YES or NO? (Chief-NO....Sheriff_NO)Good

4. Our former sheriff is the new head of the State Patrol, CBI and (Colorado)DHS. He dropped his participation in the law suit against our governor for this appointment. His job conflicts with itself as he is both a federal agent and a state officer. In the event of his arriving here to take over, will you step aside or stand down? YES or NO? (Chief-NO....Sheriff-NO)good

5. If a BLM standoff similar to the Bundy Ranch happens, (access to PUBLIC lands) will you order BLM to stand down? YES or NO? Chief-NO....Sheriff-NO) The sheriff said he would never let it come to a standoff.good enough

6. Will you keep the public lands in Mesa County open to the public?

YES or NO? (Chief-N/A....Sheriff-Probably not-Evasive) bad

7. Free Speech Zones are getting popular amongst the feds. As no such thing exists in the first amendment, will you tear down such insults to freedom?YES or NO? Chief-Sheriff both claimed no knowledge of it until I told them of the presidents visit and the Tea Party being restricted to a free speech zone where they were neither seen nor heard. Both claimed security concerns. I explained calling it a free speech zone was false and it was in fact a gag on free speech....we moved on. bad

8. Do you agree that a free speech zone is where we're standing at the time?
YES or NO? (Chief-YES!...Sheriff-YES!) It conflicts with the first answer.....does it not?good

9. Another concern of confiscation is stored food. The feds are tossing about a new catch phrase of “HOARDING”. Like wealthy folks being labeled “GREEDY” preppers will be labeled as HOARDERS. We strongly suspect the enablers in the federal government will label us as hoarders to confiscate our food and (like taxes) award it to the non earners in exchange for their votes. Will you tolerate the confiscation of private food? YES or NO? Chief-No....Sheriff-No good

10. Getting back to emergency powers, will you allow water to be confiscated under martial law, leaving Mesa County high and dry?

YES or NO? Chief-No....Sheriff-No

good

11. We have the very valuable Gulf Bulk Plant in Grand Junction. All fuel goes through it. Will you allow it to be confiscated leaving us to get around on foot?

YES or NO? Chief-No....Sheriff-No good

12. In the event of the federalization of cop shops, they might attempt to fire constitutional cops. Arresting you is not out of the realm. Myself and several thousand patriots, find this idea intolerable. We'll stand back to back with you over that. You can get a huge volunteer posse just by asking. If it comes to that, will you ask? YES or NO? We'll defend you, if you defend the constitution. These questions are to determine loyalty and then insure it.

Chief-Yes....Sheriff-Yes good

13. If the UN treaty is enacted by Executive Order, will you collect handguns in Mesa County? YES or NO? Chief-NO!....Sheriff-NO!good

14. If it's enacted by Congress will you collect citizen's handguns?

YES or NO? Chief-NO!....Sheriff-NO!good

16. deleted....did not apply

17. What does the TENTH amendment limit?" Chief & Sheriff both agreed

Federal Govt. correct answer.good

18. Do you believe that Federal cops "TRUMP" local cops?

YES or NO? Chief & Sheriff-NO

good

19. Have you ever been told to "stand down" during a FEDERAL operation?

Chief & Sheriff-NO

good

20. Do you think a Sheriff is the SUPREME Law enforcement in his county?Yes&Yes good

+21. Can you define the Posse Comitatis Act, and why it was passed?

Both did accurately good

22. Do you intend to enforce the U S Constitution as written?

YES or NO?

Yes, Yes good

23. Do you intend to enforce the “Colorado Constitution” as written?

YES or NO?

Yes, Yes good

24. Will you ARREST a Federal Officer who violates the Constitution?

YES or NO?

Yes, Yes Excellent

25. John Bad Elk killed an officer attempting to falsely arrest him and was exonerated by the supreme court. Their decision was that a citizen need not submit to a false arrest. Your opinion?

Both unfamiliar with the case but both knew any kind of false arrest was totally unacceptable

good

26. We see a lot of gloves being worn by officers. Some of them have reinforced hard knuckles sewn into the gloves. One can only speculate it's so you don't skin your knuckles while pounding a citizen into submission. These hard knuckle gloves seem to beg road testing. Buy a little boy a hammer and the whole world becomes a nail? I did a career as a cop without ever seeing the need for gloves. Your thoughts?

Chief & Sheriff both defended the gloves

bad

Closing

The constitution protects us against tyranny. This works only if it's enforced. Because no one has enforced the tenth amendment, we now have a central government that votes themselves pay raises while exempting themselves from the extortion that is Obamacare. They enrich themselves with insider trading that would land you and I in jail. We have heard endlessly that; No one is above the law. My experience no longer allows me to say that with a straight face. This needs to change. He wants to take over local law enforcement so he can remove the last obstacle to absolute power. This last obstacle is the guns. It's the only check and balance that has not been corrupted. Our guns and the Constitutional Sheriffs are the last hope of keeping this country from becoming a banana republic.

You both took the oath to defend the constitution against all enemies both foreign and domestic. Good. We'll hold you to it. I expect we'll all be tested very soon now. This will especially apply to the Sheriff. BLM is coming and so is DHS and her minions. Good luck to us all.

Gentlemen, this concludes our round table. We thank you for attending and for answering our questions and hearing our concerns. I will disseminate this information through the media to save you doing it over and over. Thanks for coming.

With three bad answers out of 25, both men scored 91% good answers. Cooperation with federal cops and their penchant for obeying unconstitutional executive orders, will be something for us all to watch. Some of the bad answers conflicted with other good answers. If I toss out the less important “glove question”, the scores jump to 96%. This is MUCH better than I expected, so over all, I'm pleased. Saying it and DOING it, are two different things. I will watch this very closely to see if the answers change when pressure is applied by the guy who says the police reacted stupidly, gives rifles to murdering drug lords and money and weapons to enemies. We're definitely living in interesting times, yes?

Mike Harlow

Here is the actual recorded audio interview

 

Wednesday
Jun032015

Colorado State Government Budget to Increase by $1.7 Billion for 2015-16 yet still doesn't catch up to 2011-2012 spending???

One important financial accountability measures for State government is a comparison of actual expenditures to the final spending authority appropriated by the State General Assembly. The Budget-to-Actual comparison reports on this page provide line-item budget detail that aligns with the State’s Long Appropriations Act, which sets the format for other budget documents and is also known as the Long Bill; they tie to the audited summary Budget-to-Actual schedules presented in the Required Supplementary Information section of the Comprehensive Annual Financial Report each year.

Click to read more ...

Sunday
May312015

DEVELOPING...Mesa County Commissioner John Justman uses local tax dollars for recent trip to the Grand Hyatt Hawaii.

VetTheGov recently learned via a recent land use meeting on May 26, 2015 where Commissioner John Justman was comically called out by Commissioner Scott McInnis about his violation of County policy for his attire since he just arrived back from Hawaii.

Hawaii during tough economic conditions in Mesa County? What's also worthy of mentioning is that Commissioner Justman had the trip removed from the Commissioners weekly calendar. VetTheGov is guessing Commissioner Justman didn't want this trip to the Grand Hyatt for the National Association of Counties Western Interstate Conference broadcasted for public knowledge in that it might just get negative attention. Well the cat is out of the bag Commissioner Justman and VetTheGov is on the story and has already sent in several CORA request. VetTheGov is concerned in the current weak local economy and all of the county's budget cuts that Commissioner Justman could ever justify this extravagant trip on the taxpayer dole.

Watch Commissioner McInnis comment to Commissioner Justman in below video starting at 0:48 

 


Stay tuned as VetThegov will try and determine the benefit and total cost of this trip to Mesa County taxpayers!

 

Tuesday
May122015

Update: Senator Steve King Ethics violations coming to a close in June

Back in 2014, VetTheGov hand delivered an ethics complaint to the Colorado Independent Ethics Commission Office located in Denver.  The complaint Case #14-16 was tabled until former Senator and Mesa County Sheriff candidate plead guilty to felony embezzlement and misdemeanor official misconduct.  The panel has now found that indeed former State Senator Steve King in fact did breach public trust and his fiduciary duty to the People.  

The frustrating part to this entire process is that a deeper investigation should have been completed with all branches of this bad vine cut off from the public dole.  

See below order.

Tuesday
Apr282015

A telling conversation between Town of Palisade Administrator and concerned citizen regarding marijuana outdoor grow in Peach Town!

Town of Palisade administrator Rich Sales admits several times in the recorded conversation included below that he makes no decisions for the town only offers arguments for the town trustees. Yet when asked what arguments he made to the town trustees against the marijuana outdoor growing Rich Sales suddenly can't remember these against arguments. The telling part in the audio conversation is Rich Sales defends Rich Sales and his $91K salary plus 25-30% benefit package as he let's his professionally paid staff run wild with what seems zero accountability. 

One of the for arguments surely was the expected $80K+ revenue from medicinal retail sales along with an additional $200K from recreational sales. However through CORA request made to the town the $5.00 per transaction fee shows disappointing and declining revenues. 2012 transaction collections from Colorado Alternative Healthcare were $56,055; 2013 collections were $50,920; and 2014 dropped to $49,950 which equivalents to approx. 27 transactions per day. It's no wonder massage therapy and marijuana are mixed together in Palisade. VetTheGov can only imagine how these two therapies mix. Based on transaction fees paid it's not a happy ending!

As progressive salaries and benefits rise and no cuts from within, the $200K+ revenue from retail operations would be a windfall bonus maker for the town employees and surely would keep Rich Sales paycheck from bouncing. Apparently the town mayor and the rest of the trustees want the HIGH rollers legal and illegal hanging out in Peach Town. Enjoy the progressive conversation!

Saturday
Apr112015

Developing...How Local Judges' Crimes Have Kept Local Man From Seeing Two Of His Children For 17 Years

Written By John Wilkenson and permission granted to VetTheGov to publish

I considered making the title of this exposé either, "How judicial crimes, faux 'oversight' by the Mesa County Commissioners, and a 'blackout' of the story by the Good Old Daily Sentinel enable rampant corruption at the Mesa County Department of Human Services" or "A Treatise on Men's Rights In Family Courts". But brevity and pithiness prevailed.

There is no nice way to say this: in my opinion, several former and current public “servants” deserve to do serious prison time for the egregious crimes -- yes, that includes felonies -- they have committed against my brother David in family court.

The real evil began in earnest when a despicable liar (my opinion) invented a horrible lie to manipulate the illegal result he -- ostensibly in collusion (my opinion) with then-Mesa-County-Attorney, Lyle Dechant -- wanted in family court. In the jurisdictionless legal-nullity Mesa County District Court (MCDC) case No. 96 JV 180, now-retired Judge Nicholas Massaro acted as his own "referral source" and, out of thin air, invented the bald-faced lie that my brother David has a "history of domestic violence". I am David's older brother, I am now 70, David is now 62, and, to this day, I have never seen Dave commit even one remotely violent act against another person. It's just not in his nature. I KNOW his character. So I don't care how many U.S.-Constitution-hating liars in black robes with cute little gavels make judicial "findings" to the contrary, Dave is a nonviolent nice guy to his core. I'd bet my life on it.

Merely for refusing to waive his legal and fundamental constitutional rights under the 1st, 4th, 5th, and 14th Amendments to demand that the various government entities obey such on-point controlling Colorado law as C.R.S. 19-1-104(6), C.R.S 19-3-308, C.R.S. 19-3-501, C.R.S. 19-3-505 and C.R.Juv.P. Rule 4.4(a), Everett v. Barry, 127 Colo. 34, 252 P.2d 826 (1953), In re Marriage of Pote, 847 P.2d 246 (Colo. Ct. App. 1993), In re Marriage of Redford, 776 P.2d 1149 (Colo. Ct. App. 1989), Molitor v. Anderson, No. 89SC13, 795 P.2d 266 (1990), Kane v. Kane, 391 P.2d 361 (1964), Holland v. Holland, 150 Colo. 442, 373 P 2d 523 (1962), McGonigle v. McGonigle, 112 Colo. 569, 151 P.2d 977 (1944), Tanttila v. Tanttila, 152 Colo. 445, 382 P.2d 798. (1963), etc., such persons as Judge Nicholas Massaro, Magistrate Jane Westbrook, and Magistrate Cynthia Cyphers resorted to violations of C.R.S. 19-1-104(6). C.R.S. 18-8-114 (Abuse of public records), C.R.S. 18-8-105 (Accessory to crime), C.R.S. 18-3-303 (False imprisonment), 18 U.S. Code § 3 (Accessory after the fact), 18 U.S. Code § 4 (Misprision of felony), 18 U.S. Code § 242 (Deprivation of rights under color of law), 18 U.S. Code § 241 (Conspiracy against rights), etc., in a flagrantly criminal Colorado-public-policy-violating attempt to intimidate Dave into waiving his legal rights to contest a self-evidently juridictionless legal-nullity child support order and the jurisdictionless legal-nullity relocating of two little American-citizen boys, Ben and Toby Wilkenson, to England with a profoundly mentally ill and violent English-citizen mother who has at no time and in no way EVER obeyed Massaro's final custody and parenting time order. To the contrary, she has engaged in the most severe long-term and ongoing parental alienation imaginable to destroy any possibility of a relationship between Ben, Toby and their father.

In my opinion, a big part of the problem lies in the fact that the local misandristic gender-feminist cultures at the Mesa County Department of Human Services (MCDHS) and the Mesa County District Court (MCDC) haven't got the remotest clue of how to handle seriously mentally ill women who make malicious false charges against men in family court situations. Nor do they have any apparent desire to do so. There's no money in it.

The way the "system" currently functions, any disordered and/or vindictive female (coached by misandristic gender feminists regarding syntax and which form to use) can fraudulently apply for a "temporary" protection and restraining order, commit serial first degree perjury (a class 4 felony) and fraudulently claim (with zero probative evidence) that she's "afraid for her life". The children will then be withheld from the innocent father for any amount of time the "system" desires -- (erring on the side of the ever popular political rubric of "safety", of course). Naturally, it's allegedly "against the best interests of the child" for that fraudulently lost parenting time to ever be subtracted from the serial-perjuring mother's parenting time and given back to the innocent father. Nothing ever happens to the serial-perjuring female in family court. There are no negative consequences for her. There's no money in prosecuting her. Even if she were prosecuted and jailed, it would only cost the "system" more money. Accordingly, the rights of the father and the best interests of the child are simply not a consideration. It's a totally unfair unequal-protection-of-law arrangement which is in direct opposition to the U.S. Constitution and the REAL best interests of the child.

It is absolutely crucial to understand that, as noted by the wonderful documentary "Divorce Corp", as a matter of public policy, men/fathers simply have no constitutional (or any other legal) rights in family court, notwithstanding all the wannabe-clever propaganda lies of the "father-as-cash-cow", "woman-as-victim" misandristic gender-feminist community.

The de facto elimination of men's constitutional rights as a matter of public policy began in earnest with the so-called Family Support Act of 1988 and progeny. According to a Congressional Research Service publication titled, "CRS Report for Congress Prepared for Members and Committees of Congress Child Support Enforcement Program Incentive Payments: Background and Policy Issues", "P.L. 105-200, the Child Support Performance and Incentive Act of 1998, established a revised incentive payment system that provides incentive payments to states based on a percentage of the state’s CSE collections and incorporates five performance measures related to establishment of paternity and child support orders, collections of current and past-due support payments, and cost-effectiveness. P.L. 105-200 set specific annual caps on total federal incentive payments and required states to reinvest incentive payments back into the CSE program. The exact amount of a state’s incentive payment depends on its level of performance (or the rate of improvement over the previous year) when compared with other states. In addition, states are required to meet data quality standards. If states do not meet specified performance measures and data quality standards, they face federal financial penalties."

Bluntly put, that's a self-evident recipe for local government corruption and misandry.

The actual mechanics of unconstitutional seizures, restrictions, extortions and intimidations work as follows:

The MCDHS Child Support Enforcement Unit (CSEU) is the entity which interacts with the local courts and the disputing mothers and fathers with children to make and enforce an order of child support obligation in each case. They can also modify and/or terminate the courts' orders on their collection process. They have enforcement jurisdiction over the child support orders which have been ordered by the courts to go through the Colorado Family Support Registry (CFSR).

The Denver-based Family Support Registry (FSR) is the entity which implements that seizure of the money (and/or property) and restricts/suspends driver's licenses, passports, and professional and recreational licenses. Based on the case reporting of the CSEU,the FSR interacts with other state and federal agencies/entities to actually order the taking or restricting of things.

The law makes the FSR immune from any liability or prosecution for the seize-and-restrict actions they take/order against any person (aka "obligator") who is alleged by the local CSEUs to owe child support. After all, they are only acting on what has been reported to them by the local CSEUs.

The local CSEUs actually take or restrict nothing. By making reports and supplying information to the FSR, the CSEUs in effect order/direct the FSR to take the actions it takes.

The FSR, based on information/reports it receives from the CSEUs, interacts with other state and federal agencies and corporations such as banks, motor vehicle departments (DMV), the FAA (pilots' licenses), bar associations and other professional licensing agencies which are required by law to obey the instructions of the FSR and are immunie for doing so.

So, if your driver's license is seized, it was seized by the DMV based on orders received from the FSR which were, in turn, based on reports/information received from the local CSEUs.

In other words, the local CSEU misandrists aren't doing the actual seizing/restricting. They're only doing the reporting/informing. Both the FSR "orderers" and the DMV-type "seizers/restricters" are by law immune from liability/prosecution.

Fathers are always referred back to the "reporting/informing" CSEUs who (of course) routinely hide in their guarded fortresses and refuse to discuss specific cases with fathers because they aren't doing the actual seizing/restricting. In the event the misandristic gender feminists in the local CSEUs just happen to deliberately feed the FSR false information for the purposes of filling the county's coffers with matching Social Security funds, the "cash cow" men/fathers are methodically butchered by the cold-hearted, unaccountable, un-transparent and immune "system". From a purely misandristic point of view it's really quite a clever (and blatantly unconstitutional) little screw-over scam.

Bottom line: men/fathers are NEVER allowed to face their accusers in open court with due process (per the 4th, 5th and 6th Amendments) prior to having their property and freedom seized/restricted.

Lawyers are afraid to confront the evil because 1) too many of them profit from it, and 2) the judges will jerk their chains and facilitate loss of their licenses to practice law.

Most men/fathers forced into family court situations don't understand what's going on, who to blame, or what to do about what's happening to them. So, barring billionaire financial status capable of hiring a team of politically-connected world-class lawyers and expert witnesses, it's virtually impossible to successfully oppose the evil in lawless courts which are by deliberate design (my opinion) an integral part of that same evil.

In my opinion, what needs to happen is a giant class action lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of the whole evil scheme. The cause of action would be unequal protection of law resulting from unconstitutional gender-based discrimination which should rightfully be subjected to strict scrutiny. The suspect class would be men/fathers who de facto have no constitutional or other legal rights in family court.

Contrary to all the wannabe-clever public relations lies, the prime directive of MCDHS and its CSEU is not the best interests of children. It is to maximize the matching funds obtained (often fraudulently in my opinion) from Social Security so all the professionals (judges, lawyers, bureaucrats, politicians, DHS case workers, etc) involved with the local "therapy" culture can make money. I've heard that figure is around $18 million annually – not exactly chump change to a small community such as Mesa County. And I suspect that's only the tip of the iceberg in plain view.

In a nutshell, the mechanics of David's situation were as follows:

A seriously mentally ill, chronically drunk driving – at least four DUI convictions, three of them involving injury accidents, and one of those injuring two police officers -- domestically violent, alcoholic, foreign-citizen woman (who has assaulted at least one police officer) endangers her husband and children. When husband naively goes to the “system” seeking intervention in defense of himself and his children, misandristic gender feminists within the system try to destroy husband.

Various Human Services employees and various Mesa County District Court employees made horribly wrong and potentially career-ending “mistakes”. But instead of just following the rules, admitting their mistakes and correcting the situation, the judicial officers in question, Nicholas Massaro (“Massaro”), Jane Westbrook (“Westbrook”) and Cynthia Cyphers (“Cyphers”) completely ignored both Colorado and United States constitutions and made various illegal (jurisdictionless legal-nullity) orders. Those lawless manipulations didn’t work out as planned, so the “Three Criminal Stooges” (my opinion) committed various criminal acts (knowingly falsifying the register of actions, the record on appeal, generating various phony documents, and an 18-day false imprisonment) trying to cover up their illegal behavior.

There are two underlying but controlling interests which control what happens to families through the family "law" system in Colorado and Mesa County. Both of them are self-serving and have nothing whatsoever to do with the health, safety and welfare of children or their parents. The primary concern is the monetary interests of all the "government" and "professional" individuals and entities involved in the socialistic therapy culture other than the parties. Then, of course, there are the misandristic gender ideologues who tend to gravitate to the family law systems -- (in an attempt to find personal healing, don't ya know) -- where they can be handsomely paid to implement their sick ideologies on the rest of society and can wield the greatest possible power and control to "make a difference" on the American culture.

David's case has proven beyond reasonable doubt that rule of law and constitutional rights are not a consideration with what happens in America's family court systems. From the paperwork Dave filed in U.S. District Court, it has become crystal clear that even the federal courts could not care less about the constitutional rights of men/fathers. In the history of Dave's case, various Colorado judicial officers and employees have selectively and extensively falsified the court record to cover up their lies, manipulations and violations of law. Then, when found out, some person/s at the Colorado appellate courts destroyed the entire written record of the case -- (under the pretence of "getting lost in the mail") -- to cover up the judicial felonies. In addition to being a serious deprivation of rights, that's prima facie obstruction of justice. That's serious stuff. But the federal courts don't care.

For Dave, the hideously acrimonious divorce aspects of his saga are long since over. For some 17 years he has been illegally and irreparably deprived of a relationship with his two sons, Ben and Toby (who went to England at ages 4 and 3, and by now, at ages 21 and 20, probably think of themselves as British citizens with a "bad", or even dead, father). The glaring systemic problem which remains is that, from a legal point of view, the judicial crimes committed against David are STILL ongoing and continuous because they are being given ongoing and continuous accessory-after-the-fact status by a corrupt CSE system which continues to illegally deprive David of his driver's license and passport, and to illegally try to collect fraudulently1 claimed (and illegally created) arrearages. In other words, the original judicial felonies perpetrated against David are STILL being "accessorized" after the fact -- (in prima facie violation of C.R.S. 18-8-105 and 18 U.S. Code § 3) -- as I speak by a corrupt MCDHS and an evil-enabling board of county commissioners who disingenuously (my opinion) pretend they can't do anything about the evil.

I know of one case (which I can talk about only on the condition of anonymity) where the father is supposed to be getting child support from the mother (who now works for Mesa County), but CSEU won't collect from her. Instead, in the not-too-distant past, CSEU illegally collected from the father ostensibly so they could report to the federal government that they had collected the child support money and, in so doing, subsequently collect the matching Social Security funds. Then, after reporting that they had collected the child support money (for the purposes of matching Social Security funds), they refunded the father's illegally taken money.

Another individual I have heard about -- (again, I can only speak about on the condition of anonymity) -- where CSEU has created multiple accounts concerning the same case, ostensibly (my opininon) to be able to tell the United States Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) officials that they have collected on six different accounts when they have in fact collected on only one account. So they ostensibly (my opinion) collected six times the money in matching Social Security funds they were supposed to. One anonymous whistle blower said there are hundreds of such cases. In my book, that's Social Security fraud. No wonder local lawyers and politicians don't want to confront this stuff: Mesa County might lose millions of dollars in fraudulently obtained loot.

There is little doubt in my mind that, should the proper law enforcement authorities ever choose to investigate the matter, they would find that there exists a level of Social Security fraud being perpetrated by the MCDHS CSE unit which would completely dwarf the recent airport scandal by comparison.

                        * * * * * * * * UPDATE * * * * * * * *

Kevin King of VetTheGov.com sent a CORA (Colorado Open Records Act) request to Mesa County asking to examine the records in Dave's case, ostensibly to discover evidence proving that the MCDHS CSE unit has been committing Social Security fraud for years by fraudulently collecting matching funds on a non-existent child support order in David's case. The "county" sent this response denying King's request.

You will notice that the "county" -- (a real person with a real name typed that response and is accountable for it) -- said "Other than the child support enforcement files, which are confidential except to the parties involved..." That looks as if David could request his own information, pursuant to C.R.S. §26-13-102.7, particularly since parts (3) and (4) say:
"(3) In addition, an individual about whom information is gathered or transmitted pursuant to this article or section C.R.S. 14-14-113, shall have the right to access such information relating to him or her in order to verify the accuracy of the information and the lawfulness of the processing of such information."
"(4) Any individual about whom information is gathered or transmitted pursuant to this article or section C.R.S. 14-14-113, shall be entitled to civil damages in a court of law against any person or entity who knowingly violates the provisions of this section."

But let's see what happens when Dave makes a CORA request for his own information. A lawyer who was representing Dave already asked MCDHS for the information, and, not only did MCDHS refuse to give it to him, they even stopped talking to that lawyer about his other clients who were involved with MCDHS. The MCDHS CSE unit is a lawless, misandristic gender-feminist loose cannon. The MCDHS CSE unit knows full well they have been fraudulently collecting matching Social Security funds for a non-existent order. That's why somebody at the Colorado Court of Appeals destroyed the entire written record of the case: to cover up (my opinion) the original judicial crimes (including both misdemeanors and felonies).

You may notice that, in their response to King's CORA request the "county" also disingenuously said, "As for court cases, those records would be with the Mesa County District Court." Obviously, the "county" -- à la such persons as former county attorney Lyle Dechant2, who (according to an anonymous source) allegedly instructed MCDHS employees to not talk to ANYONE about David's case -- knows full well that some "go to" person/s at the Colorado Court of Appeals destroyed the entire written record of the case, under the pretense that it got "lost in the mails" was "accidentally" destroyed.

The records did not "get lost". That didn't happen. Dave talked to a postal worker who steered him to the postal experts at Mail Managers. They told Dave that they particularly remembered the package in question because it was a big parcel. They tried to track the package on their postal service tracking computer and it didn't come up. The entire tracking record was missing. They told Dave they had never seen that, or even heard of that -- (the entire record going missing) -- happening before.

A couple of months ago I ran into one of Dave's lawyers who is now retired. After asking me how Dave was doing, he said, "Boy, your brother really got f*cked. I told them [MCDC and MCDHS] that woman was crazy."

I will be sending notice of this story to Daily Sentinel reporter, Gary Harmon. Gary has known about this case for years, and has been given (by Dave) much, if not most, of the paperwork in the case. Prior to Jay Seaton's tenure as owner, somebody at the Daily Sentinel -- (ostensibly someone in power, like George Orbanek, Denny Herzog and/or Bob Silbernagel) -- decided to spike this HUGE public interest story about judicial felonies. In my opinion, when they did that, they were acting as de facto accessories after the fact -- (see C.R.S. 18-8-105 and 18 U.S. Code § 3) -- to the judicial crimes in question. Hopefully it will eventually come out which specific named person/s at the Sentinel are responsible.

As Matt Drudge likes to say, "developing . . ."

(NOTE: Article 2, Section 10 of the Colorado Constitution says in pertinent part: “Freedom of speech and press…every person shall be free to speak, write or publish whatever he will on any subject, ... and in all suits and prosecutions of libel the truth thereof may be given in evidence, and the jury, under the direction of the court, shall determine the law and the fact.” The foregoing exposé is 100% political speech aimed at exposing judicial criminals and correcting a serious systemic problem. While the material is the author’s 1st-Amendment-protected opinion, it is also the truth, so help me God. See also the legal disclaimer for this website.)

Interested persons can read the full story at:
David E. Wilkenson vs. Colorado: A Saga of Criminal Judicial Behavior In Family Courts — Part 1 and
David E. Wilkenson vs. Colorado: A Saga of Criminal Judicial Behavior In Family Courts — Part 2

Individuals interested in helping implement radical (and effective) reform of America's lawyer-enriching corrupt and lawless family court systems should check out the http://www.divorcecorp.com website.

RELEVANT VIDEOS, BLOGS, ARTICLES, COLUMNS, STATEMENTS AND WEBSITES:

Child Support Enforcement Program - "Excerpted from the 2000 House Ways and Means Green Book, 'Child Support Enforcement Program'"

The Child Support Enforcement Process - "Excerpted from the 2000 House Ways and Means Green Book, 'Child Support Enforcement Program'"

Analysis of Federal-State Financing of the Child Support Enforcement Program - Congressional Research Service

Child Support Enforcement Program Incentive Payments: Background and Policy Issues - Congressional Research Service

Child Support In The United States - Wikipedia - (NOTE: always verify everything you read in Wikipedia. That said, it still remains an extremely useful gateway to online research.)

Congressional Research Service - Wikipedia

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services - Wikipedia

Office of Child Support Enforcement - Wikipedia

Social Security - Wikipedia

Many records on state judicial branch employees would be off limits under proposed new rules - Colorado Freedom of Information Coalition

Family Civil Liberties Union

FOOTNOTES:

1. David has paid roughly $100,000 in child support over the years. That's roughly $10,000 more than would have been collected if Ben and Toby's mother were not seriously mentally ill, and if Colorado law had been being followed.

2. Some criminal investigator needs to talk to sitting MCDC Judge Valerie Robison about what Lyle Dechant's orders to her (regarding Dave's case) were when she was the Assistant Mesa County Attorney -- because she was the one who wrote the termination order which Magistrate Westbrook signed that terminated the Title 19 juvenile case (96 JV 180) as well as the 5/6/97 jurisdictionless legal-nulity [see C.R.S. 19-1-104(6)] child support order which MCDHS' CSE unit has been fraudulently collecting matching federal funds for.

Tuesday
Apr072015

2012 Civil Court case filed against Town of Palisade gives more insight into a small town government gone Progressive!

As the layers get peeled away in a small town government invaded by progressive thought, it comes with consequences to the taxpayers and businesses within and around the community.  Take for instance the civil case of Cynthia Thompson v Town of Palisade.  What you will read is how a hostile workplace and negative environment was created when the purging of those not sold on the progressive ideals of the town leaders began creating dissention in the rank and file.  However if you agreed with the progressive ideals, its one big anything goes party at the taxpayers expense and of course this poor ladies layoff that paved the way for the now very high administrative salaries in this small town! 

Interesting that the town manager shows so much concern of losing his own overpaid $91K job that he would threaten a concerned citizen she would be his retirement plan if he was forced out!  Listen to the unbelievable conversation here.  In this segment the town manager uses his personal livlihood as leverage for not coming against the towns progressive movement.  But what about Cynthia Thompson's job town manager?  Based on the civil suit it destroyed everything in her life.  Can't these progressive minded folks see the demise they cause from their own hypocrisy?  Horrifying to watch a small town fall to the likes of these cruel characters that not only pick winner and loser businesses but also winners and losers within their crumbling administrative walls! 

Stay tuned as the progressive turmoil of town board members and town administration try and cover up their mismanagement by placing the focus on another sole member not buying into the progressive ideals!   

Saturday
Apr042015

Breaking: Former Palisade Police Chief shares his frustrations with the Town of Palisade Administration and direction of the town!

VetTheGov sat down with former Town of Palisade Police Chief Carroll Quarles about a month ago to discuss the dysfunctional nature of a town he used to police gone wild from within.  Mr. Quarles discussion was a very pleasant and refreshing conversation of Truth and reality of his working in a progressive government.  VetTheGov released this story in which the former chief's name was used as a segway into the devisive politics and accusations that have taken out so many employees during his tenure.  This line from the story was simply used to show how sexual harassment complaints are used in this town to remove individuals that don't fit in to the progressive mindset.  When Mr. Quarles read the story that included his name he was frustrated that it reflected his situation in the wrong light or inaccurate.  VetTheGov reached out to Mr. Quarles and explained that the one line in the story was only being used as a segway into the many sexual harassment complaints and sexual escapades rumored or kept confidential from within the town hall walls and was meant in no way to discredit his service to the community.  After apologies from both parties VetTheGov asked for permission to post his response to the original story and Mr. Quarles agreed. 

Here is former Palisade Police Chief's email received:

Subject: Erroneous Information
Message: In your article, "Things in Palisade aren't so Peachy" you mentioned that my termination from employment was due to a sexual harassment complaint that was investigated by CIRSA. If that is the case, I was not made aware that was the reason for my termination. Would you like the "rest of the story" as Paul Harvey used to say?

Acting Chief Debra Funston was hired by me to fill a full time investigator position at Palisade PD. At the time, we had a Sergeant who became frustrated with me because I refused to allow him to be her direct supervisor. I explained to him that management of a police agency has two basic organizational lines. One is "line function", and the other is "staff function." A line function is a patrol function which is the backbone of all police agencies. A staff function covers everything else, including investigations. As such, investigators do not report to the patrol sergeant as their first line supervisor. In our case, the department was too small to have a more than one investigator. Since the investigator was working primarily day shift, it was appropriate that the investigator report directly to the chief. The Sgt vehemently disagreed, and he was able to convince half the patrol shift that I was wrong, and therefore untrustworthy. This was the beginning of the breakdown between me and the staff, exacerbated by my second in command.

After Funston was hired, and working day shift, we had many opportunities to discuss cases and put out internal fires caused by the Sgt. There were also times when she, I, and the records clerk (also a female) shared many "war stories". One of the stories I told concerned a former police officer who was immature in many ways, especially concerning women. The town had a woman employee who had very large breasts. It was obvious to anyone who watched this officer when speaking to this female employee that he was focused on her breasts, and never looked at her face except fleetingly. Now, I didn't just bring up this story out of the blue. We were talking about sexual harassment as a problem in our culture. Neither of the women were offended by the remarks, and I never heard any complaints.

Several weeks passed, and I directed the Sgt to conduct a field training program for Funston. During this program, the Sgt was very critical of her. He accused her of not completing her reports, being a coward, and anything else he could think of to create a rift between us. I asked him for a written complaint, based on actual evidence, and never received one from him. I asked him if he expected me to discipline an employee without any proof about the things he was complaining about, and he said that he did. I disagreed, and did not discipline her.

A month before I was terminated, the Sgt filed a complaint with the Human Resources department about my having sexually harassed Funston. I was contacted by Rich Sales and given a copy of the complaint. Funston had not signed the complaint, only the Sgt did, who was allegedly reporting it on her behalf because she was afraid of retaliation. I recognized right away that I was in a pickle. If I tried to talk to Funston it would appear that I was trying to subvert the investigation, and perhaps be retaliating against her. I decided to take a chance, and scheduled a meeting at Riverbend park with her in one car and I in another. I told her to turn on her recorder, which she did. The entire conversation was recorded by Funston.

I told her that the Sgt had filed a complaint of sexual harassment against me on her behalf. I did not ask here any questions about the complaint, or try to pressure her about the complaint at all. I showed her a copy of the complaint, and she was surprised by it. She said that she had repeated the story to him when the were on patrol, and that he had used it to make his own complaint without her knowledge, while using her as the tool to have standing with the complaint. I told her that if I was guilty of any such behavior, I should not be the chief, and should be fired. She recorded the entire conversation, and I never mentioned it to her again, and until this day, we have never talked about it. But, here's what happened:

When the human services rep interviewed her concerning the complaint, she told him that I had never sexually harassed her. She said that she had never seen or heard me make any disparaging remarks about women, make innuendo or hint at sexual situations. She told him the context of the conversation I described earlier, and reiterated that there was nothing sexual about it. However, she retained an attorney who sent the town administrator a letter expressing his concern for his client's treatment by the Sgt, and that he would be keeping close tabs on the way his client might be treated by the town in the future. In other words, "back off".

That is the truth concerning the "sexual harassment" complaint made by the Sgt. I have no idea whether CIRSA investigated the complaint, but my guess is they did not since the complaint was unfounded at the beginning. CIRSA would only get involved if there was a settlement of some sort, which to my knowledge, did not happen. Of course, many things have happened since I left, and apparently, this "rumor" that I was fired for sexual harassment is one of them. What better way for Sales and Co. to protect themselves from political fallout for firing a well respected and effective police chief? I'm not perfect, but I never sexually harassed anyone...ever. 

My termination was a direct result of my inability to keep my mouth shut about the advent of the legal marijuana business in Palisade. Here's what happened:

Robert Melot is a self described entrepreneur who moved to Palisade in the early 2000's. He developed a subdivision just east of Palisade High School, and also built an office building where Fruit and Wine Real Estate, the Distillery, and Canyon Winds Winery are now located. He also built a office building just north of the Distillery and Winery. He leased some of the office Space to the Colorado Association of Vinters, and the other half of the building was vacant. The real estate marked crashed in 2008, and Melot was having a hard time making ends meet. A vintner from Denver wanted to open a new tasting room at the vacant space in Melot's building. The vintner went through the planning process, and when the Town Board heard arguments concerning impacts to the neighborhood, it denied the permit.

The regulation of alcohol is well established in laws concerning zoning, parking, sewer, noise, traffic mitigation, etc. No such rules applied to the marijuana industry at the time. Melot was whining about the town putting him out of business, and Tim Sarmo, the town administrator at the time told me he felt sorry for Melot because the bankers were getting ready to foreclose on his business. The town had not done the right thing concerning the tasting room. I had no dog in the fight, so I made no comments.

The above situation took place in May, 2009. In October that same year, I received an email from Sarmo on Monday explaining that there would be a special meeting of the town board on a Tuesday between the regular board meeting days. The purpose of the meeting was to discuss medical marijuana. The meeting had been posted on the bulletin board just outside town hall, which fulfilled the sunshine law requirement. On Tuesday, Sarmo called me into his office and told me that the board was going to consider approving a business license application for a medical marijuana dispensary in Melot's building. He told me that he knew I would not be in support of the license, and that he did not want me to make any editorial comments during the meeting, and just answer direct questions from the board. Having received a direct order to keep my mouth shut, I kept it shut. I was only asked one question during the meeting, which was generic.

The only people who attended the meeting were the trustees, the department heads and clerk, and one citizen: Robert Melot. The press was not there. The applicants were not there. No citizens were there. It was during the world series, and one of the trustees said "I hope this doesn't take long, I want to go watch the game." I knew as soon as I sat down that this meeting had been discussed beforehand by phone between Sarmo and the trustees. By doing it this way, all the discussion was completed, and the sunshine law was not a consideration. The vote was pre-determined. The community was not made aware of the advent of the dispensary. The press was not invited, and the department heads had been kept out of the loop until the last minute to control the possibility of any information being leaked. In the months between May and October, meetings between Melot, Jesse and Dessa Laughman, Tim Sarmo, and Nathan Boddy (Town Planner) had taken place to streamline the process and keep the public out of it. The trustees voted 6-1 to approve.

The local newspaper (The Palisade Tribune) ran an article about the dispensary, and also asked me to comment on it. I wrote a rather lengthy response which was not in favor of it, and I was pretty sure I made it clear what I thought of how the process took place. Sarmo and the trustees were livid! If not for the Whistleblower Act, I'm sure I would have been fired. Sarmo was too smart to fire me, but it was clear that I hadn't endeared myself to him and the trustees. Be that as it may, the dispensary is now the goose that laid the golden egg in Palisade, and I am just a bad memory. How is any of this relevant?

Tim Sarmo was a former employee of the Department of Local Affairs. So was Rich Sales. They have known each other and been friends for over 20 years. When Sales was fired from his job with the City of Delta, Sarmo hired him as the Assistant Town Administrator for Palisade, a position that was created by Sarmo. How convenient that he hires his long time friend to be his replacement, which the trustees were more than happy to rubber stamp. I admit I was taken in by Sales. He was pleasant where Sarmo was not. He seemed to want to hear what his staff had to say, where Sarmo didn't. He seemed to want to put to rest the turmoil surrounding Mayor Walker's recall, and other political issues, where Sarmo didn't. He treated me fairly, when Sarmo didn't. So, I was more than glad to give him a glowing recommendation to the Trustees when he was "competing" with a panel of applicants for Sarmo's position.

Within just a few months of Sales taking over as town administrator, his demeanor toward me changed. He would receive an erroneous complaint from the Town Treasurer/Human Resources head, and without asking me my side of the issue, write me a reprimand. When he would serve me, I would tell him what really happened, and the reprimand was withdrawn. Things got so bad between the police department and the treasurer that I finally told Sales that I had had enough. I told him that the Town treasurer was an officer of the town, and as such, reported directly to the Trustees. Consequently, since he (Sales) was not able to get her under control, I would take the issue directly to the trustees myself. He asked me not to do that, and I stood down...for a while. Finally, the treasurer, who also administered the health insurance reimbursements for employees, refused to honor one of the officer's request for a reimbursement for some small piece of therapeutic clothing. The same article had been reimbursed for one of the other officers. When the treasurer told him no, he asked her why she had approved the other officer's request. She said, "I was in a good mood that day. I'm not in a good mood today."

Sales was in Glenwood Springs when this happened. I had communicated via email with the treasurer who became quite agitated at me. I forwarded the emails to Sales, and to the Trustees. This made Sales very angry. This was about 6 months before I was fired. Now, I'm no rocket scientist, but I can see where Sales was too quick to discipline me without all the facts, and refuse to discipline a treasurer with all the facts. I can see where I stepped on his toes by going over his head, which I had told him I intended to do if things didn't change. So, I shot myself in the foot so to speak. All of these things are taking place at the same time I'm having issues with the Sgt concerning Funston.

In early October, 2012, I had finally had enough of the Sgt, and I told Sales I was going to fire him. I had caught the Sgt lying to me about another personnel issue concerning officers under his supervision. I told Sales this on Monday the 10th, and was fired on Wednesday the 12th. He called me into his office and said this: "I've got some bad news for you chief. Today is your last day." I not so calmly asked him why. He said there was no reason, that I was an at will employee and that the town could end our relationship at any time without cause. I knew this to be true, so I packed my bags, and left that same day. Ask yourself, Mr. Vetter, if I had been guilty of Sexual Harassment and had been terminated for such foolishness, wouldn't Sales and the Trustees be in a better position to defend themselves against the outcry of an angry public? How easy would it have been to simply say so? Yet, they waited, apparently until the dust had cleared, and somehow leaked it to someone. If CIRSA had investigated the complaint, and decided to settle out of court, wouldn't that settlement be part of the public record at some level? The town contracts with CIRSA for insurance coverage. They do not pay CIRSA for investigations CIRSA conducts based on potential payment of claims. Your insinuation that the town spent money because of the investigation of a sexual harassment complaint is not true. Funston was in a position to file a complaint of "Creating a hostile work environment" based on the Sgt.'s behavior. Whether she did or not, I don't know. So if CIRSA investigated anything based on a sexual harassment complaint, it had nothing to do with me. If they paid a settlement, I would check into hostile work environment complaints by Funston against the Sgt.

If I were Funston, I wouldn't comment on any of this, especially since she is now the acting Chief of Police. Yet, it would be interesting if someone were to ask her if I had harassed her, just what she would say. If she has any integrity at all, she would say, "No."

Here is a video clip where Mr. Quarles explained the same situation during a meeting to discuss a possible run for Mesa County Sheriff.

Now you have the rest of the story and hopefully draws more attention to the inside dysfunctional operations of progressive small town political agenda gone awry!  Could these same reasons of standing up against the towns obvious direction of marijuana based businesses be the demise of the new Palisade Police Chief?  Sure seems like the situation playing out like many in the past!  Stay tuned more to come!

Friday
Apr032015

Town of Palisade & Colorado Alternative Healthcare violating Colorado Anti-Trust Law?

While VetTheGov has secured several CORA request from the Town of Palisade there has been an apparent theme regarding marijuana as the new source of revenue for the city since they have such high administration cost to cover and to fund their progressive utopia building process.  The problem the Town of Palisade finds itself currently is that in their rush to create revenue they have not thought through the violations of the Colorado Constitution and the Colorado Revised Statute (C.R.S.) of creating a monopoly situation for the owners of Colorado Alternative Healthcare/Palisade Apothecary.

C.R.S. 6-4-102. Legislative declaration

The general assembly hereby finds and determines that competition is fundamental to the free market system and that the unrestrained interaction of competitive forces will yield the best allocation of our economic resources, the lowest prices, the highest quality commodities and services, and the greatest material progress, while at the same time providing an environment conducive to the preservation of our democratic, political, and social institutions.

C.R.S. 6-4-105 Monopolization and attempt to monopolize

It is illegal for any person to monopolize, attempt to monopolize, or combine or conspire with any other person to monopolize any part of trade or commerce. 

Town of Palisade adopted and refined codes that have allowed ONLY Colorado Alternative Healthcare to operate outside of the Legislative Declaration of a competitive free market system regarding competitive forces by minimizing medicinal operations within town limits to a single entity.  But what's most compelling in this monopoly State law violation are found in emails, board meetings, planning sessions, meetings with the town manager, and the owners of Colorado Alternative Healthcare prior to conditional permits being awarded to just one business.  If your business is making bank on the monopolization town ordinance, it only makes sense that you would protect the nest egg!   

C.R.S. 31-15-103 states the following: 

Municipalities shall have power to make and publish ordinances not inconsistent with the laws of this state, from time to time, for carrying into effect or discharging the powers and duties conferred by this title which are necessary and proper to provide for the safety, preserve the health, promote the prosperity, and improve the morals, order, comfort, and convenience of such municipality and the inhabitants thereof not inconsistent with the laws of this state.

Therefore the Town of Palisade is in direct conflict with a State Statute and the Colorado Constitution since a town ordinance can never ever conflict with a State law.  Town of Palisade Ordinance 2014-14 is in violation of State law and must be challenged for that cause.  Free market competition must be allowed and not restricted in the Town of Palisade.  Colorado Alternative Healthcare along with the Town of Palisade must be investigated for criminal activity immediately by the Attorney General's office for manipulating town ordinances and votes for monopolized gain by both entities!

6-4-117. Enforcement - criminal proceedings

(1) The attorney general shall prosecute all criminal proceedings for violations of this article, whether by indictment or direct information filed in the appropriate district court.

(2) Any natural person who violates section 6-4-104, 6-4-105, or 6-4-106 commits a class 5 felony and shall be punished as provided in section 18-1.3-401, C.R.S.

(3) Any person, other than a natural person and a governmental or public entity, that violates section 6-4-104, 6-4-105, or 6-4-106 is guilty of a felony and, upon conviction thereof, shall be punished by a fine of not more than one million dollars.

6-4-114. Enforcement - civil damages

(1) Any person injured in its business or property by reason of any violation of this article may sue therefore and, if successful, shall recover any actual damages sustained by such person. If the violation alleged and proved is determined by the court to be a per se violation of this article, such person may recover three times the actual damages sustained by such person.

(2) In any action brought pursuant to this section, the court, in its discretion, may award the prevailing party its expert fees, the costs of the action, and reasonable attorney fees.

(3) No damages, costs, expert fees, costs of investigation, civil penalties, or attorney fees may be recovered from a governmental or public entity, or from any official, agent, or employee thereof acting in an official capacity, or from any person based on any official action directed by such governmental or public entity.

Stay tuned as VetTheGov will be filing papers and evidence in District Court along with copies to the Attorney General's office demanding action be taken to investigate and remove the restrictive non-competitive language found in the Town of Palisade's illegal ordinance and the manipulation behind closed doors!

Thursday
Apr022015

Update: Town of Palisade: Not so Peachy these days

Since this original story was written, local Grand Junction media and specifically the Peach Town News has mentioned the material brought forth but only responded to a few of the issues raised.   

The first topic Peach Town News tackled were the sex offenders in Palisade and the safety of the kids.  The Town knew there was a problem so they are forced to make new routes for the kids to travel versus not allowing sex offenders near school zones.  Surely this one act resolved all safety issues for the kids since nothing mentioned the re-arrest of these sex offenders.  VetTheGov did find in the 2015 town budget that revenue is collected from sex offenders registering in the town limits.  $120.00 - $140.00 of annual revenue doesn't seem close enough to cover the expense of buying property and building a sidewalk to veer away from the sex offenders who can also live and walk near the same sidewalks anyway.  Stats supposedly prove that sex offenders don't often re-offend however the many re-offenders from Palisade tell a different story.   

The Sunshine Laws for clarification allow for meetings between a single board trustee and town administration.  However in the eyes of impropriety it appears on face value that these meetings are being held without knowledge to the other board members based on email communications received via CORA.  With two board meetings every month and numerous unison votes, who is manipulating who in these off schedule meetings?  One thing is for sure in a town of only 3000 people, the administration is being well compensated by this board.  From 2015 Online approved budget:

Town Administrator - $91,117.00 + 30% benefits
Admin Asst - $33,840.00 + 30% benefits
Town Clerk - $54,829.00 + 30% benefits
Town Treasurer - $62,026.00 + 30% benefits
Deputy Treasurer - $39,285.00 + 30% benefits
Public Works Director - $74,216.00 + 30% benefits
Public Works Foreman - $50,920.00 + 30% benefits
Police Chief - $68,400.00 + 30% benefits
Fire Chief - $68,400.00 + 30% benefits
Facilities Manager - $54,037.00 + 30% benefits
Community Development Director - $55,925.00 + 30% benefits
Rec Events Coor - $42,899.00 + 30% benefits

The median income in Palisade is 42,099.00.

Speaking of liquor licenses in Palisade and liquor establishments which there are several, there is only ONE medicinal marijuana location.  The owners of this facility are making bank because of a monopoly position of no other competitors allowed until the town reaches a population of 6000.  Based on several emails obtained via CORA the owners of the medicinal facility are very nervous of rumors of applications being filed by potential competitors.  Surely just the tourism of travelers into the town should allow for more competition in a true free market system we are told we have.  Peach Town News there is recreational marijuana sales in your town you just don't know about it or being oblivious it goes on.  Even the town Mayor was concerned about the High Rollers coming to town!  Surely the more pressing issue with Sustainability being at the forefront of discussions these days because of the hyped climate change religion, water demand for the incoming wave of grow houses might just instill the hypocratic oath by all who jumped on the marijuana bandwagon!  VetTheGov wonders how all the agriculture farmers in Palisade will enjoy the higher consumption of water needed for weeds?  Anyhow Palisade you will find your alcohol and marijuana and sex offenders have maxed out your law enforcement budget and just might be one of the reasons your police chief has been placed on leave since the town would rather spend money on other more important issues like asbestos abatement!

If the town truly profited from the events the Peach Town News raves about then it would be a huge winner for government profit/revenue.  However based on the 2015 budget referenced earlier, the biggest event the Bluegrass Festival Brings in 185,000.00 to the town coffers.  The sad news is it cost the taxpayers $309,872.00+++ to put on this event.  The news gets even worse when you look at your tourism account which has been a losing venture ever since Palisade started selling medicinal marijuana!  Also pay close attention to the climbing Liability expense that grew from $49K in 2011 to $80K in 2014 & 2015.  Any more sexual harassment issues and this one will blow up even higher!  The electricity usage is getting out of hand as well.  Look closely at the increases in just a couple of years.  So much for solar saving the tax payers.   

The Town of Palisade is another example of big government progressives behaving like vultures and then move on to destroy the next small town!  Detroit gave us the perfect picture of a corrupt progressive government bankrupting and destroying a community.  Looks like Palisade is next in line!!!  Hard to believe the Palisade community supports this board and top heavy administration!