Pub's liquor license revoked

City Council votes, 3-2, against Jade Summit owner Nerney

Advertisement

— City officials Thursday revoked the liquor license of Jade Summit restaurant and Pirate's Pub owner Kevin Nerney for what they called a violation of the state's liquor code of conduct.

The Steamboat Springs City Council, acting as the city's Liquor License Authority, voted, 3-2, to immediately revoke Nerney's liquor license after a lengthy, quasi-judicial hearing at Centennial Hall. The decision applies to both Jade Summit and its upstairs Pirate's Pub, located in Ski Time Square.

"He can no longer serve any liquor, period," Steamboat Springs Police Capt. Joel Rae said late Thursday afternoon. "As of right now."

Nerney's attorney, Kris Hammond, said he would look into an appeal.

City Council members Towny Anderson, Susan Dellinger and Karen Post voted for the revocation, while council members Paul Strong and Steve Ivancie voted against a punishment they called too harsh. Council members Ken Brenner and Loui Antonucci were not present.

Thursday's hearing was the continuation of proceedings that began Oct. 11, when Nerney was called before the city's liquor board because of accusations he violated state liquor codes of conduct. Nerney was arrested in February on a misdemeanor charge of unlawful sexual contact after an alleged incident at Pirate's Pub, but he was found not guilty of that charge in Routt County Court in August.

Despite the verdict in the criminal case, city officials proceeded with the administrative hearing as a separate case that City Clerk Julie Jordan said was required by state statutes regarding "conduct of establishment."

The Colorado Code of Regulations, enforced by the state Department of Revenue's Division of Liquor/Tobacco Enforcement, details lawful and unlawful conduct for liquor license holders and licensed businesses.

"To me, it was very clear that the boundary was crossed. : I definitely think there was a violation of the liquor license," Dellinger said after hearing testimony from witnesses including a Pirate's Pub employee, Nerney, and a member of the Colorado Sex Offender Management Board. In October, another pub employee, the patron and two friends testified before the council.

Thursday's hearing also included statements and cross-examinations from Hammond and city prosecutor Collette Erickson.

Interpretations

During testimony Thursday, Nerney acknowledged that improper contact occurred between him and the patron, but he said it was accidental. Nerney said he reacted to his February arrest with "shock and disbelief."

Hammond said the events of that night were "completely misinterpreted" by the patron and her two friends. He also stressed the importance of the jury's not guilty ruling in August, and said Nerney was exercising his rights to due process in Thursday's hearing.

"He's not going to roll over for the (city) staff or anybody else for something that he did not do," Hammond said. "And that's why we're here."

Erickson said Nerney was making "self-serving excuses" for improper conduct in the alleged incident.

"There is nothing difficult about this case at all - look at the weight of the evidence," she said. "None of the actions he took (in February) support the version of the events he is trying to tell you here today."

All five council members present Thursday said they found the testimony of the patron and her friends credible, more so than Nerney's. All five ruled that Nerney violated the state liquor code in the alleged February incident.

Jordan said the violation was Nerney's second within a year - in June 2006, Nerney was cited for serving alcohol to a minor at Pirate's Pub. His liquor license was suspended for seven days - with three of those days actively served, and four held "in abeyance" against future violations - as a result of that violation.

Jordan recommended a 29-day suspension for the second violation. Strong and Ivancie favored a lesser suspension.

"If you close a place down for a month, in some cases, you might as well revoke their license because of the financial burden," Strong said. "And I'm not sure that's where I'm at in this case."

Standards of proof

Nerney could have avoided Thursday's hearing in August, when the city offered him a 15-day suspension, with 10 days held in abeyance. Had he taken that offer, his liquor license would have been suspended for a total of nine days, including the four days in abeyance from the 2006 violation.

Nerney rejected that offer and chose the hearings.

Anderson, Dellinger and Post said Thursday that a "preponderance of evidence" and a concern for public safety led to their decision to revoke Nerney's liquor license.

"This is an egregious violation," Anderson said of the alleged February incident. "I'm thinking about the message to the public, and the protection of the patron : In my mind, it's an automatic revocation. No one, ever, should be subjected to this in an establishment in Steamboat Springs, Colorado."

Hammond called the decision a "death penalty" for Nerney and the family-owned restaurant and bar.

City attorney Dan Foote said the liquor board's decision could be appealed in district court, and added that Nerney could request a stay of the revocation while an appeal is pending.

Foote said that there is a "different standard of proof" in a criminal court case and a case before the city's liquor board.

"The criminal case involved several factual elements that didn't have to be proved in (front of the) liquor board," he said. "In this case, 'preponderance' means 'more likely than not.'"

Dellinger said Thursday's hearing was not about the criminal charges already settled in court.

"That's not what we're judging," she said. "We're judging his ability to hold a liquor license : which is a privilege."

Rae said Steamboat police are stepping up their enforcement.

"We are going to be doing liquor enforcement and compliance checks every month, indefinitely," he said.

Comments

bcpow 7 years, 1 month ago

Just another passive aggressive move. We offered you 15 days with 10 held and since you didn't take it...now you get the death penalty. Could these guys go away any sooner?

0

id04sp 7 years, 1 month ago

Vehiclular homicide, leaving the scene of an accident, reckless driving and plenty of physical evidence to prove it, and you walk around town on a $5,000 bond.

But, an unproven allegation is enough to cost you your ability to make a living and cause untold financial damage to the business owner and his family.

The 14th Amendment says that you cannot be deprived of life, libery or property without "due process." Where is the due process in this case?

The businesses involved here may deserve to be shut down, but not on the basis of allegations which were not proved during a judicial proceeding. The licensing board members had better take a real close look at their charter and the basis of their jurisdiction over this matter given the outcome of the criminal proceeding, and see if they are personally liable for this man's losses due to revocation of his license. The issue of "unlawful sexual contact" was decided by a "higher court," and in this case, I hope there is an appeal to the District Court, and that the revocation is reversed.

0

sugarcone22 7 years, 1 month ago

1st - Routt Cty Court Jury Trial-6 Jury members chosen by both DA & Attorney-but not before they were pre-screened. They had no prior info on this case. Did not know Kevin, the Pirates Pub or anything involving the case. Found NOT GUILTY.(in less than 1/2 hour) 2nd- Quasi "Kangaroo" Court- ALL city council members were provided arrest reports, & advice from Julie Jordan, Joel Raye etc. months before. True: Kevin WAS offered 9 day suspension, but what the newspaper failed to report that it came with a price. "You MUST plead GUILTY" Why plead GUILTY to something you didn't do? Back to the 2nd Quasi Trail: This was carefully orcestrated by the DA, Joel Raye & the City Council. (3 of which lost their positions on the council on Tuesday's vote) All testimony presented was the same as the testimony presented in the Routt Cty Trial. How could the outcome be sooo different? By the way did you know that during closing arguments, the DA was going to allow Capt Joel Raye to present the closing agruments??? This was unbelievable, and shot down by all. My questions are these... When did Capt Joel Raye pass the BAR Exam & become an attorney? And finally How can you say its NOT PERSONAL...What are his further plans here in Routt County and Could a Promotion be close at hand?

0

justathought 7 years, 1 month ago

It looks like losing the election has teed off some council members and they are now intent on wreaking havoc before they are replaced. Trying to throw your weight around while you still have some? ["The criminal case involved several factual elements that didn't have to be proved in (front of the) liquor board," he said. "In this case, 'preponderance' means 'more likely than not.'"] To ruin someone completely (professionally and personally) on a "more likely than not" is akin to giving the death penalty for a "fifty fifty chance" someone committed murder. These kind of people should not have this much power, Lord I hope the new council actually has some common sense.

0

Matthew Stoddard 7 years, 1 month ago

There should have been a continuance since 2 Council members not attending and 3 lame ducks.

0

hihoney07 7 years, 1 month ago

Hallelujah, finally some justice for the victim! Everybody presumes that because he was found not guilty, he WAS not guilty, but all 5 board members heard what happened and all 5 members believed he was guilty; all 5 members felt he deserved some sanction. The only difference was the length of the sanction. He could have accepted the city's offer and he chose not to. Narcissism comes at a price.

0

id04sp 7 years, 1 month ago

Well, you know folks, there is another solution to this. Spread the word around that women are not safe in the place if that' what you think, and let the market make the decision. When dollars stop walking in the front door, having a liquor license won't make any difference. I know that one from experience.

0

justathought 7 years, 1 month ago

We just had an election and the outcome of that election should show you what the citizens think of your "boards" judgment. Yes, he could have accepted the city's offer but most people balk at pleading guilty to something they haven't done. I hope he intends to sue the council that believes they are better than a court of law, the taxpayer will be the ones to pay for a lawsuit but they are the ones that elected them. By the way, I don't know this person nor have I patronized his establishment, I also know we have problems with our court system, but I'll put my faith in a jury before I will a politician any day.

0

JQPUBLIC 7 years, 1 month ago

id04, that's exactly what should have happened, not a second trial held by an egotistical council that can't respect a jury's decision. Had I been the victim of unsolicited "unlawful sexual contact" in a public place with witnesses, the perpetrator would have been picking himself up off the ground.

0

hihoney07 7 years, 1 month ago

justathought

Juries are made up of people that are summoned, they may or may not want to be there making decisions. Your city council ran for their positions and spent countless hours on behalf of the citizens of SS to try to make it a place that everyone wants it to be, a job that is impossible when there are so many differing opinions of what people want. You couldn't pay me any amount of money to endure what they have, and to be vilified the way they have. I'm sure on some level they are relieved to be out of the line of fire and I feel sorry for the new members, they won't be able to please everyone either.

0

hihoney07 7 years, 1 month ago

JQPUBLIC

There are all kinds of people who visit bars. Not everyone wants to deck offenders. They put their faith in the system and it fails them sometimes. This outcome kept Nerney out of jail, but evidently there's truth to the allegations. Hammond is very adept at maneuvering the system and he had his way in the courtroom, however it didn't fly with the board.

0

steamin 7 years, 1 month ago

I wanna have a cocktail at the Pirate, go Kevin.

0

spukomy 7 years, 1 month ago

What a joke. How did the City Council end up with the power to be the Liquor Authority? Politicians and alcohol don't mix well. I wonder if all of them are even TIPS certified.

So the real Court found him not quilty and our esteemed CC couldn't take that at face value. It would seem they have a chip on their shoulder.

The struggles the restraunts have had to endure while Ski Time Square gets redeveloped are staggering. They are already on their last legs.

The lame ducks got to take a parting shot. If the whole CC was there it may have turned out differently. Now Kevin has to shell out big bucks to try to fight this. I hope he wins. To shut down someones livelyhood with a "quasi trial" not attended by all the "judges" is a mockery of justice. I don't know how they sleep at night.

0

trump_suit 7 years, 1 month ago

This is a travesty of justice in my opinion. When the jury trial concluded that Kevin was innocent of the charges against him, that should have been the end of it. I have to agree with keilbasa. This should have been continued at the very least. When the owner of a bar is not allowed to control or remove unruly customers there is a problem. How can the city council members justify such an extreme penalty when the accused was found innocent of ALL charges. This decision should be overturned.

For hihoney07

Were you there that night? Do you know any of the alleged victims? Why are you so convinced that the jury was wrong?

0

hihoney07 7 years, 1 month ago

Look, people, there was no unruly customer; no trying to get out of a DUI, or any of the other stupid rumors that have been thrown out there. Face it, Nerney thought he could get away with it, probably because he has before. If you read go1rockies comment before it was removed, you'll see there are others who have more information.

0

trump_suit 7 years, 1 month ago

Were you there hihoney07? The jury disagrees with you. They determined that his actions were justified in light of the accusers actions and behavior that night.

0

hihoney07 7 years, 1 month ago

Were you there? How do you know what actions took place? What actions or behaviors are you talking about? You obviously have no idea about the truth of the situation. I'll bet you weren't there. If you were you'd know that nothing happened other than what Nerney did. Unprovoked is the word I'd use. Although according to law, touching of any certain parts in a bar is against the liquor licensing statutes. That's why he lost his license.

0

trump_suit 7 years, 1 month ago

No, I was not there. Were you???? The jury's decision was clear. (yes I read the case files)

How many times have you observed an unruly customer escorted out of a bar that screams "You touched my tits, I am suing......." Most bar patrons that have to be removed are not happy about that situation and spew out numerous accusations about how unfair their treatment is, or claim to be violated during the eviction process.

The jury clearly beleived that this was the case, and found Kevin innocent on all charges. I fail to understand how the CC came to a different conclusion.

0

hihoney07 7 years, 1 month ago

Did you read the police reports? Nerney slipped up. He made a statement that Hammond kept out of the court case. The board caught it and, guess what, realized he was guilty. Get your facts straight before you start throwing out accusations.

0

Matthew Stoddard 7 years, 1 month ago

hihoney- How did you see the police reports? Show them to us, please.

0

spukomy 7 years, 1 month ago

Hihoney, I understand that you think Kevin was guilty and got off. I understand that you think the ends justify the means.

But do you think it is just that politicians are able to find a person guilty of a crime that the Courts said never happened? This reeks of personal vengance.

0

superfan55 7 years, 1 month ago

we know the actions he was accused of didnt happen because he was found innocent in the court of law and as for go1rockies's comment it was erased because that was slanderous if there were any proof to that there would have been a court case and someone would be in jail

0

hihoney07 7 years, 1 month ago

No, it reeks of justice. Suffice it to say, I KNOW HE GOT OFF. I also think that the liquor licensing board has a job to do. They are ultimately responsible for what kind of people sell liquor in SS. I think they take their job seriously and the offense justified the outcome.

0

steamin 7 years, 1 month ago

If you people care about these folks who are being shut out after being proven inocent, go have some food at the Jade summit and try to help'em out. Love the kung pao!

0

spukomy 7 years, 1 month ago

You still haven't answered the question? Do you think politicians should have the power to find someone guilty of a crime that the courts said never happened?

0

spukomy 7 years, 1 month ago

steamin, Way to bring a positive to the table. I'm in.

0

superfan55 7 years, 1 month ago

prove it thats all i have to say he was found innocent beyond a reasonable doubt in a court of law and all i have to say is prove it hihoney07 prove that he did it

0

hihoney07 7 years, 1 month ago

I think that a liquor licensing board has a job to do, in that capacity the city council (same people) did their job. You know, if you don't want the city council to be the LLB, separate the two. Don't beat them up for doing their job.

0

superfan55 7 years, 1 month ago

you still havent answered mine or spukomy's questions is it ok to try a person twice?and also prove that kevin did this i say that is unconstitutional for the city to to this

0

bubba 7 years, 1 month ago

I didn't realize that the job of the LLB or the city council was to second guess the court system in a 'quasi-judicial' hearing?

0

hihoney07 7 years, 1 month ago

His actions warranted a look by the licensing board as to whether he should be allowed to sell liquor. His actions brought all of this about. A court of law is not infallible. Innocent people are convicted and guilty people get off every day. It's too bad, but we can't always count on the courts to get it right.

0

superfan55 7 years, 1 month ago

the fact remains this is a case of double jeprody we all may believe oj really did it doesnt matter what we think it matters what the courts decided

0

superfan55 7 years, 1 month ago

no i just disproved your point oj is an innocent man no matter what the victim's family or anyone for that matter thinks

0

superfan55 7 years, 1 month ago

no i just disproved your point OJ is an innocent man no matter what the victim's family or anyone else thinks

0

hihoney07 7 years, 1 month ago

Okay, you go there. There was a guy on the front page of the Post last week who's been arrested, I think, 87 times. Guess he's innocent too. The courts keep letting him back on the streets. OJ is free, not necessarily innocent.

0

superfan55 7 years, 1 month ago

yes he is just because he is brought in as the usual suspect doesn't mean he committed a crime

0

Harvey Lyon 7 years, 1 month ago

There is a big difference between criminal behavior and inappropriate behavior. Certain businesses, such as those issued liquor licenses, are held to a higher standard due to the potential for trouble associated with liquor sales. A LLB is a necessary evil due to the many historical civil troubles associated with liquor sales.

Commercial drivers also have a "higher standard" and often lose their license without getting a ticket or "points".

I know nothing of the case here but the LLB appears to have judged that the owner failed to meet the standards they expected of him.

Even if Sheriff Wall avoids legal entanglements from his summons there will be many that will believe he failed to live up to the "higher standards" they expect of him. It is not an entirely different situation and frankly, I believe in "higher standards required" in some public trust positions such as elected officials, and bar owners.

Our LLB is the "authority" here and in our case they are also elected officials given their authority by the voters. There is a reason for the old saying "you can't fight City Hall".

0

superfan55 7 years, 1 month ago

in the united states of america (which im pretty sure we live in) you are innocent until proven guilty this isnt france (where you are guilty until proven innocent) kevin was innocent until proven innocent this case i happen to know is quite simmilar to the duke lacrosse case both cases the victim changed their story multiple times

0

hihoney07 7 years, 1 month ago

So you think oj is innocent, just because the courts said so? And I thought I was naive.

0

hihoney07 7 years, 1 month ago

Oh COME ON! Duke Lacrosse team? The facts of the story never changed. Each time the facts were identical. What I want to know, is what do you think these girls had to gain from all this? They were not going after gain, they were seeking justice.

0

hihoney07 7 years, 1 month ago

What I'd really like to see happen is for the other young women who have information re: his behavior come forward and let's get the truth out there.

0

justathought 7 years, 1 month ago

hihoney, you have managed to avoid answering all questions asking if YOU were there that night so I'll draw my own conclusions. Would you be so supportive of the council's findings if they had found him not guilty? I think not. You're too adamant about this mans guilt even after he was found not guilty in a court of law and too elated over his ruination by the council, again, I'll draw my own conclusions.

0

hihoney07 7 years, 1 month ago

You ask a good question, maybe I am happy with the board's decision. However, if they had found otherwise I would live with it. I've had to live with the outcome of the trial and it was a debacle. So draw your own conclusions.

0

armchairqb 7 years, 1 month ago

Okay all you sideline judges. Should we go 2 out of three ?? right now its tied at one .. Best 3 out of 5

0

dave reynolds 7 years, 1 month ago

please don't bump into any club chick for being accused of gropping them..sorry it happened but don't put yourself in that situation ..I hope Kevin survives this

0

fedup 7 years, 1 month ago

Well folks I've got news for ya:..BE AFRAID..BE VERY AFRAID. Cause what I saw yesterday at our City Council told the tale of what's been going on in our city government for a LONG TIME. 1. Blatant collusion of our elected city council to railroad a man into admitting his guilt, when he has already been declared innocent in a court of law by a jury of his peers. UNPRECEDENTED

  1. Holding a Kangaroo court for the sole purpose of imposing a stiffer punishment for simply wanting to stand up for his rights. UNPRECEDENTED

  2. Calling for the Police Chief to give the summation for the Liquor Board!!! UNPRECEDENTED

  3. After the liquor board recommends a 30 day suspension The City Council members decide within about a 45 second deliberation to REVOKE his license entirely. This is after 2 violations. UNPRECEDENTED

This is starting to sound like a George Bush Administration joke on The Bill Mahr show Oh and by the way folks it was your dime that paid for our beloved police chief and his lackey to "hang out" for the proceedings yesterday from 9:00 AM to 5:00 PM. Hmmmm personal agenda perhaps Mr. Raye?? All I have to say is that I felt very different waking up in Steamboat this morning than I did the previous one. It was vindictive spiteful and politically motivated:..plain and simple. Oh and don't let the door hit you in the : on the way out Mr. Anderson!!!! Signed Fedup

0

momxfive 7 years, 1 month ago

I went to bed Thursday night in the beautiful town of Steamboat Springs and woke up in Salem, Mass. I thought the witch trials were over. I don't know how these people can sleep at night. Kevin, keep your head up and know that the City Council does not speak for everyone in Steamboat. We love you and support you and your family 100%. As for the Council members that lost their jobs, what goes around comes around.

0

trollunderthebridge 7 years, 1 month ago

Whether you agree or disagree what happened to Mr. Nierney.

I found it interesting to hear Towney's parting words..."We are not here to make sure people stay in business". One would think that this has been his agenda all along.

I have heard that BEFORE! S...rew the little guy!

0

hihoney07 7 years, 1 month ago

Don't you people care about the calliber of people in business in your town? Don't you want your council to monitor businesses and when something unwholesome happens, take measures to see that it doesn't happen again? Silly me, I thought that's what they were supposed to be doing, not kowtowing to the wishes of the single-minded.

0

id04sp 7 years, 1 month ago

Listen, high honey,

Stay out of dives where girls get molested. Pass the word around.

There's no need to do the equivalent of jumping out into a crosswalk in front of a dump truck just because the pedestrian has the right of way. Use some common sense.

0

hihoney07 7 years, 1 month ago

I don't understand the slandering. There's no need. Justice has been served and that's all that matters.

Praise God, for He hears prayers.

Bye y'all... hope that handlebar mustache doesn't find its way into the personal places of your daughters, granddaughters, neices, or sisters.

0

outsiderlookingin 7 years, 1 month ago

What exactly was accomplished yesterday by city council? They got their jollies off by trying to put a guy out of business,which by the sound of these blogs they didn't succeed, when in reality they just showed how much collusion really goes on, only this time it was on public display. What a disgrace to the system.. What? what was that noise? Oh, that was the founding fathers' rolling over in there collective graves!!!!!!!!

0

armchairqb 7 years, 1 month ago

Okay Steamboat get ready for next years Caberet. The one liners are coming in fast. Pirate owner "I did not have sexually relations with that woman" "I"ll be back" (Schazhazenegger or Mac Arthur) to paraphrase Jack in A Few Good Men "YOU just messed with the wrong New Yorker" or Nixon "I am not a crook"

0

A_DOZER 7 years, 1 month ago

I think this sounds like the councils out for blood. I dont know maybe they though kevin didn't vote for them or something so they are taking their revenge. And I would agree with superfan that this does have some simularities to the duke lacrose case just in a scaled down version. Also hammond is a very good lawyer and i have to disagree with almost everything hihoney said. I would like to send my support to the Nerneys and everyone who works at the jade.

0

A_DOZER 7 years, 1 month ago

I think this sounds like the councils out for blood. I dont know maybe they thought kevin didn't vote for them or something so they are taking their revenge. And I would agree with superfan that this does have some simularities to the duke lacrose case just in a scaled down version. Also hammond is a very good lawyer and i have to disagree with almost everything hihoney said. I would like to send my support to the Nerneys and everyone who works at the jade.

0

id04sp 7 years, 1 month ago

Sugar,

Do you mean "everybody," or just the men?

0

sugarcone22 7 years, 1 month ago

Hey STEAMIN/SPUKOMY had a GREAT idea. All you people out there who thought Kevin got a "RAW DEAL" from council. Let's ALL go down to the JADE SUMMIT & show our support. Buy a bowl of their Hot & Sour Soup, try the Pad Thai. (its the best) Feel free to shake his hand, give him a Hug & tell you support him 100%.

0

Doug Marsh 7 years, 1 month ago

superfan--- you were not at the trial because there were only three people in the seats. Two relatives of the claimant and me. No one else was in there unless you were part of the jury. If that's the case, you should be ashamed for not using your common sense. Paybacks are hell.

0

hihoney07 7 years, 1 month ago

Thanks, mom, I knew this couldn't have been the only time he's acted inappropriately, it was too extreme.

0

Scott Wedel 7 years, 1 month ago

The City Council screwed this up as well. If they had voted 7-0 or 5-0 then they could say whatever happened was unacceptable for a someone with a city liquor license.

But voting 3-2 with two council members not showing up and the 3 voting in favor having lost their seats in the election then it looks too much like 3 losers taking it out on a business owner and leaves great doubt whether the result would have been different under the newly elected city council.

0

hihoney07 7 years, 1 month ago

To the staff of the pilot...

Why have both of the comments that related inappropriate actions by Nerney been removed?

One-sided much?

0

justathought 7 years, 1 month ago

hihoney, we could accuse you of inappropriate actions on this forum but that wouldn't make them true, now would it? I'm sure the pilot staff would remove accusations against you (identifying you) also.

0

agentofchange 7 years, 1 month ago

God, I love typing this again...

GOOD BYE Anderson, Post and Dellinger!

GOOD BYE Anderson, Post and Dellinger!

GOOD BYE Anderson, Post and Dellinger!

GOOD BYE Anderson, Post and Dellinger!

0

raver 7 years, 1 month ago

hey hihoney, why the hell are you complaining about comments being removed? you got exactly what you wanted didnt you? i mean you won the case and shut down nerny. you also seem to think that our system of juries and due process doesnt work based on some of your comments. well maybe you should move somewhere that has a court system you find more suitable. or better yet, get over your self and accept that kevin was found innocent in the court of law.

0

wzstfu 7 years, 1 month ago

hihoney - you need to calm down, twist one up or something.

I would like to say that I am shocked at the outcome of this case, but what else can one expect from the monstrous trio of Anderson, Dellinger and Post? These people are the scary ones - not Kevin. The sooner they get out of City Council the better. I just hope they don't ruin anyone else's lives before they go.

0

sugarcone22 7 years, 1 month ago

Hey HiHoney, you mentioned to superfan55 that the facts never changed. In the "real" trial one gal changed her story 5 times. In the "kangaroo" trial that same gal didn't even show. She got to testify via the phone. Guess its easier to read a script than to do it in person. (that way you can't get the story mixed up) Kevins story was the same, the night he was arrested, the day of the "real" trial & the same as the"kangaroo" trial. One thing IS for sure, City Council screwed up "BIG TIME" and although 3 are gone, alot of people out there are talking about what's left of the old council & are asking BIG questions. I don't think that this story is over. TUNE IN NEXT WEEK

0

hihoney07 7 years, 1 month ago

The stories never changed, and if I remember correctly, in the first trial, one of Kevin's witnesses was able to testify by phone also. So there's no defense on that.
As for Kevin's story... though it "never changed", it was completely ridiculous in the first place! Anyone who knows the real story would know that it's a completely made up excuse, and anyone who knows the truth would know that Kevin is a man who thought he could get away with yet another improper act on an innocent young woman. It's obvious that nobody will change anyone's minds, so for the last time, I'm done here.
And yes Raver, I am happy about the outcome, so I will shush about that now. Justice was served.

0

Seabunny 7 years, 1 month ago

There are some interesting collusion details that are missing from this story from people who were there. The accuser did not leave the bar and make a complaint. It was only when pulled over by the police after driving that a complaint was made. MMMH. Does that mean that the Joel Raye's careful involvement in this case is to cover up for the fact that the police did not make an arrest for DUI but instead listened to an ever changing story of supposed groping from a girl who had drunk way too much.

And interestingly enough, as far as I am aware, the ousted City Council member's terms ended at midnight on the 7th so the three that voted against Kevin were not even legally still in a position to make judgement on the 8th whether correct or not.

And from what I have heard of the hearing, even Susan D's mom was there and appalled at the outcome.

0

sugarcone22 7 years, 1 month ago

I know you are still there.HI HONEY...True a witness did testify via phone on Kevins behalf, but that was only because he was back east. He had already flown in & testified "in person" in the "REAL" trial....and HIS story NEVER changed. The other witness that testified in the "REAL" trial was in Australia and HE TOO has a story that NEVER changed. Where was YOUR witness, and how come HER story CHANGED 5 TIMES? And while we're at it. How is it, that a "Victim"of "POST TRAUMATIC STRESS SYNDROME" can be cured in one visit????? If this is true, that SHRINK is a miricle worker....Move over Dr. Phil ....I smell an Emmy.

0

sugarcone22 7 years, 1 month ago

emjay1-You must be delusional-Prove your alligations-because they ARE NOT TRUE!!!!You are just the poison that keeps Hi Honey going!!!! No one was injured, over-served,ambulance calls (none made, none on file)Their was ONLY 1 (one) violation for underage serving (nothing Kevin is proud of) however, look into the REAL files, many other establishments have been fined for MUCH MORE.Where did you get your information from? Pirates Pub is NOT GONE ....just waiting.....tune in next week....By the way...don't bother coming....you're NOT INVITED

0

lessworkmoreskiing 7 years, 1 month ago

We should pick on the Pirate's Pub because no other bar in this town has ever had a problem. And there are definitely not lots of drugs being done by patrons and staff and other bars in the vicinity... Give me a break! What is happening here? Bad stuff happens at every bar in town; I think the penalty is too stiff. Pirate's Pub is completely out of business in the spring anyway, what is the point of doing this? just let them do their thing until Intrawest dominates ski time square

0

Sheryl Pierson 7 years, 1 month ago

Sometimes things just work out for the best, and this is a prime example.

0

CoJustice 7 years, 1 month ago

Criminal v. Conduct (two different offenses). The individual was found not guilty of a criminal act, however found at fault in the conduct code. There are penalties associated with both of these items, but dealt with separately and differently. The conducts of an establishment are governed by regulations, and "activities offensive to senses of average citizen" are judged separately. These proceedings were required by law.

It is the duty of the police to enforce these laws as outlined in the state statutes of the Division of Liquor/Tobacco Enforcement, under the Department of Revenue. The SSPD is doing their job, as required by law. Part of the investigation includes testimony, and assistance to victims.

I am getting the feeling that a lot of people want a lawless life style, freefall that position victims last.

0

CoJustice 7 years, 1 month ago

How much money do you think victims would be eligible to receive if law enforcement and Commissioners were negligent and at fault for failure to enforce the law?

0

emjay1 7 years, 1 month ago

Sugarcone: Ok, there probably was only 1 violation, but everything else I said was absolutely TRUE. Where is this "file" you speak of when you say there were no "reports on file." The cops and ambulance are at the Pirate's Pub more than any other bar. Other bars do have problems, yes. Anyone remember the Inferno??

0

Matthew Stoddard 7 years, 1 month ago

emjay1- Soooo, can you provide a "file" that says "The cops and ambulance are at the Pirate's Pub more than any other bar"?

0

ventrygirl 7 years, 1 month ago

emjay1 The Inferno? PLEEEEEZE! That went down in flames years ago. Move on, would you.

0

steamberg 7 years, 1 month ago

We should remember that there are 2 sides to every story and unless you were present that evening you do not know the truth . . . only hearsay from others. We should also remember that Steamboat is still a small town with small town values - touching a woman's bosom inappropriately in a bar by the owner - not welcome here - again - if that is in fact what really happened. I certainly hope that the previous city council did not have it 'out' for the bar owner but one never knows what those 3 had on their adgendas.

0

Matthew Stoddard 7 years, 1 month ago

steamberg- Now put your statement in reverse:

We, who were not there, saw and heard a Not Guilty verdict come from a jury trial in the Routt County Court system, and all those saying otherwise are spouting the same type of hearsay on a different side of the issue.

What makes heron123, chicago, et. al., more convincing than a unanimous jury decision that didn't seem to find that person's story convincing, especially when I know one of the jury members and have no reason to dispute what they heard in trial?

0

steamberg 7 years, 1 month ago

I am not disputing the jury's decision. However, it would appear that there must be other incidents with this owner that have not been made public. I do not think he deserves what city council handed out - did the previous owner of the business in that space lose his liqour license for what he did? or didn't he have one?

0

Matthew Stoddard 7 years, 1 month ago

The previous owner, unless I'm mistaken, was Marco Pauvert. He changed his business, I believe, and moved to the old Cugino's spot on Oak Street. For what reason...that I don't know. Mattie Silks was sold off a few years back.

As for other incidents not made public...doesn't that pretty much amount to hearsay?

0

Doug Marsh 7 years, 1 month ago

Okay, this will be my last comment. To : kielbasa I too am a 29 year resident. My daughter was one of the girls at the table. She met up with them later that night. Had two beers and notified the police of the event. I know exactly what happened according to her. No, she is not a dirt bag but a pretty special girl in this community that has worked with Advocates during her high school days. I guess if Kevin was my neighbor I would support him too, but you have to ask yourself; could he possibly be lying to save his marriage and his bar. My daughter has nothing to gain or lose in this matter. She only told the truth being three feet away from the event.
I really don't care what happens to Kevin, but I would like this community to know since we have lived here so long that my daughter saw and heard exactly the way she testified. Why the jury didn't pick up on her testimony I will never understand. But all 5 City Council members believed the girls and didn't believe the stubbling act by Kevin. Hopefully the community can move past this some day, but only one group was telling the truth that day. Ponder that.

0

oldskoolstmbt 7 years, 1 month ago

looks like dos got out and the tugger is still a maybe...liquor license holders acting inappropriately?????maybe kevin was looking at the other establishments and thought this was accepted 'round here...some advice for kevin...don't start dealin' too just cause the other boys in ur neighborhood do, u haven't been part of 'the triangle' long enough to get away with it!

0

steamboatsconscience 7 years, 1 month ago

"Hey Sweetcheeks, ever seen a belly button swallow a shot glass?"

0

hihoney07 7 years, 1 month ago

Steamboatsconscience...

Is that a direct quote?? Just curious.

0

Requires free registration

Posting comments requires a free account and verification.