aichempty 6 years, 6 months ago on Wiggins wants investigator Joe DeAngelo as his undersheriff


As a student of appellate law, and "color of law" cases in particular, the question always hinges on jurisdiction, which is constitutionally determined. Immunity from prosecution hinges upon acting within the authority granted by a lawful government, and that's what the court actually decided. That is how immunity from civil prosecution is determined in color of law cases. It really doesn't matter what the opinion states. Those opinions are generally crafted by law clerks (law students or graduates who have not passed the bar exam) and even contain content cut and pasted from arguments submitted by the attorneys arguing the case. I know this for a fact. I've read them and it's plain on the face of the opinions as well as the pleadings submitted by the parties.

The opinion only deals with the matters before the appellate court. It does not extend too the peripheral issues, such as criminal liability for using police power to coerce a woman into having sex with another man. If that was going to be prosecuted, it should have been done by internal affairs at the department in question . . . oh. . . but it was IA that was DOING the coercing. Yeah, that makes sense.

Do you get it?

Asking for money in return for sex is a crime. The cops get around that by making sure the suspect is the one who offers money for sex. See the difference? The police cannot legally solicit a person to go out and commit a crime in order to catch someone else in the act of going along with it.

Again, just look at the facts of what the woman was asked to do in order to get a lighter sentence, and tell me you want somebody doing business like that in Routt County.

Screamer, there are plenty of cops who don't have "baggage" behind them. They're not going to come to work here, however, because this is where you come to pick up the baggage. It's obvious that local cops in high positions and positions of trust do some pretty shady stuff (back to the two who got in trouble at ACET under Wiggins).

There is a LOT of stuff around here that gets ignored by the police. I personally believe it goes to the ethics and conduct of the local judges, and that some people don't get arrested for some things because the cops know it will never make it to court. I believe there is a level of trafficking in cocaine, at least, which is immune to prosecution around here, and I believe it because I went to RCSO with PROOF of money laundering by people who were KNOWN to be cocaine traffickers. I was told, "That's too hard to prove." Yes, it is, when nobody will take a complaint and nobody will investigate. I saw it with my own eyes. If there is another explanation for why a police agency would not investigate a crime involving trafficking in cocaine, other than "certain kinds of people" are immune, please, tell me. I'd love to hear it.


aichempty 6 years, 6 months ago on Bank files for foreclosure on One Steamboat Place

The Milton-Bradley game "Monopoly" has some interesting features which mirror real life economics. Basically, you win the game by accumulating real estate and charging rent to other players when they land on it. Although there is a matter of chance involved in it, in the long run, the more property you own and the faster you can raise the rents on it, the better your chance of winning. There comes a tipping point where one player has most of the money and only has to wait for the others to go bankrupt.

The game stops there, however. It does not continue on to the point where the recession sets in because people are homeless, jobless and everyone's property values fall.

There comes a point where the people with most of the money cannot spend it fast enough to sustain the economy. 1000 people spending $250 a week on groceries because they have jobs is a lot different than 2 people spending $500 a week on groceries because they have a lot of money. $250,000 in business cannot be offset by $1000 in business. Our system has put so much money into the hands of a few people that they cannot spend it fast enough to create all the jobs at all the lower levels which are required to sustain a viable economic system.

Huge salaries paid to CEOs would do much more for the economy if the same amount of money was used to pay more to the workers, or to hire more workers. Our tax system needs to contain incentives for business to pass more money along to workers instead of executives. The CEOs have optimized business into a system which depends on wealth that only a few people will have in the end, and that makes them non-sustainable.

Call it the "executive compensation bubble." The last time we had this kind of situation, unions came along and demanded better pay and benefits for workers. We were a net-exporting nation with international demand to make up the difference. Now, with all our labor and manufacturing jobs gone overseas, there are not enough low-level consumers to sustain the whole economy, and that's why small businesses are failing and people are losing homes and jobs as a result.

Drastic reform is required. Domestic manufacturing and extractive industries have to start meeting domestic demand so that we can put our own people back to work. We have shipped our prosperity overseas to China, Korea, Taiwan, etc. via our demand for manufactured goods, and that's why they are growing and viable economies while we are crashing.

As for locals expecting special treatment from ski corp, do the winos in Las Vegas get a discount at the casinos? Do the people staffing resorts in Mexico get to stay there at a discount? People around here should be thankful for the business ski corp brings to town, especially the ones who moved here to become "locals" so they could ski more.


aichempty 6 years, 6 months ago on The Jail Report for Oct. 30 to Nov. 5


Using this logic, there should be no stop signs or speed limits . . . . at least not around here. Oh, include MIP tickets too.


aichempty 6 years, 6 months ago on Wiggins wants investigator Joe DeAngelo as his undersheriff


This was an appeal by the plaintiff of a case in which the lower court found that DeAngelo was acting within his jurisdiction as a police officer, and therefore was not liable for civil damages. That's all it was. There was no criminal component of the case at bar. The federal laws cited in the opinon were enacted by Congress during the Civil Rights era to allow people to seek civil damages from police officers who violated their constitutional rights.

Although the opinion is detailed and rambling, what it really says is that the Court is not going to protect a person who engages in such activity (sex and drugs) willingly and knowingly from going back and doing the same damn thing as part of a deal with the police. If the woman had no previous relationship with the officer being investigated, and actually suffered physical harm, there might have been grounds for her to seek damages in a trial.

The issue here is that DeAngelo consciously engaged in a situation where he promised leniency to a female suspect on the condition that she have sex with the officer who was being investigated. Why not get her to help catch the guy for cocaine use, possession or trafficking instead? Does it bother anybody else that the details of the sex act and gathering of evidence were pretty much like something out of a porn flick? That's the issue here. How do we know DeAngelo won't promise leniency in return for sex in some other voyeuristic or male fantasy scenario when the person with the choice to make is one of our wives, daughters, or mothers?

There are lots of men who have the "whore-madonna" complex when it comes to sex. Wikipedia has a really good summary on it. Maybe it's the mother of their children they see as the madonna (the loving mother figure, but not a sex object), but when it comes down to doing something dirty in the bedroom, they need a whore for that. Can a man who would come up with this kind of scheme involving a woman and a police investigation really have anything like a normal level of respect for the other women he encounters in his life? Experience would say "no." I've seen it in the military, cops, fire fighters,construction workers, athletes, etc. It's called "misogyny." In English that means, "hatred of women."

A police officer is in a position of authority, and recent events with ACET prove they need better morals and a larger sense of responsibility and public trust than the people who Wiggins seems to hang with.

ftp, you've spent a lot of time railing against Wall and Bustos on issues much smaller than this one. Are you going to hear about that for four years? Oh, yeah, you are.

As to the next candidate, given his background in law enforcement, fire fighting and our local political scene, I'd say Kevin Nerny might be next. He's available, no?


aichempty 6 years, 6 months ago on Wiggins wants investigator Joe DeAngelo as his undersheriff

A quote from the link posted by screamer:

It thus appears (always construing the facts as we must at this stage of the litigation as favorably to the plaintiff as the record will permit) that the police may have obtained Gepfert's consent to sex by fraud, and if so that was a battery<

Holy cow. Gary Wall was run out of town for failing to take a roadside test, and now, according to the judge who wrote this opinion, Sheriff-elect Garrett Wiggins wants to hire a man who coerced a woman into having sex with another man, to set him up for a charge of soliciting prostitution, by threatening to lock her up for 40 years.

Everybody needs to follow that link and read it.

This is outrageous behavior by any standard.

Wiggins' true colors come out before he even takes office. Puts a whole new light on the ACET officer who, under Wiggins' supervision, engaged in a sexual relationship with a drug offender. No wonder it went on. Give you any inclinations about the "climate" at ACET? This is the first time I've ever been glad our daughter doesn't live in Routt County. Drugs, cops, and sexual exploitation under color of law. Wow. No wonder Wiggins kept quiet about his choice for undersheriff.

The whole thing is disgusting. The recall petitions ought to start circulating tomorrow.

Any of you who supported Wiggins on this forum on the grounds that he was somehow morally superior to Gary Wall ought to be the first ones to sign.

Tee hee. A dented fender and a desk were the big deal with Bustos. This is a riot. If this is the kind of stuff that comes out in open court, can you IMAGINE what has gone on that none of us will ever know about?

And the commissioners voted to pay him the maximum rate. I wonder how this is going to affect the "relationship" of the RCSO with the county commission? I'll bet THEY feel screwed when they find out about this.


aichempty 6 years, 6 months ago on Wiggins wants investigator Joe DeAngelo as his undersheriff


Wow. You came SO CLOSE to leaping to the obvious conclusion.

If what you say is true (which remains to be proved) and all those things were done, then maybe that's why Wiggins wants this man on his team.

If you have the proof you say, then you need to contact the U S Attorney's office and the FBI. Oh, but before you do, nothing will come of it.

How can these guys spend all the time and money they spend in this area and never catch anybody "important" unless it smacks them in the face? There have only been three cases where "respectable" people have been implicated in drug trafficking since back about '92.

It seems likely that the cops overlook most of it on purpose rather than that they are completely incompetent. I've often wondered if the turnover in our local agencies is due to people coming in, finding out what's really going on, and then leaving rather than be a part of it.

The history of corruption in police agencies across this country is full of instances where the higher-ups were using their positions for personal profit. There's nothing new about it. The difference is that, today, the public has more opportunity to communicate with each other and expose these situations when they become known.

Years ago, the real sheriff in the "Walking Tall" story took on corruption in his county and cleaned it up. Sheriff Wiggins will have an opportunity to do the same. Mr. DeMarco may be a PERFECT choice to help him do it. Assuming they can both get through the first couple of months without wrecking a vehicle or getting a DUI, we may see things get shaken up around town. An investigator who knows the DA's office and a Sheriff who knows the drug trade might make some changes for the better.

The question we need to have answered if your allegations are true is, did DeMarco let them off the hook as a "professional courtesy," because he could not make a case, or because he could not afford to put them in a place to trade information for leniency?

It's a sad fact that cops, DAs and judges can make a lot more money by NOT locking up criminals. Our liberal and drug-addled populace does not demand it. Around here, organized crime violence is unheard of, and that's why the feds never get involved. Non-violent crime is low priority for the feds. There has never yet been a reason for anybody from Denver to come up here and kick over stones, and that, I believe, is why people get away with the little "victimless" crimes that only cost honest people their hard-earned money. The feds are not going after a judge over $15,000 unless you have video of him accepting a bribe, and unfortunately, my case was one of simple theft under color of official right. Not a big payoff considering the cost of making a case, so I had to eat it.

As it turns out, as time goes on there are more people with much better reasons to hate him, and maybe someday I'll get $15,000 worth of satisfaction some other way ;-)


aichempty 6 years, 6 months ago on Wiggins wants investigator Joe DeAngelo as his undersheriff

An excerpt from Scott Wedel's post above: >As someone that has read that case, those are not quite the agreed upon facts. Those are the claims from those suing DeAngelo and the judge said even if those were to be proven true then DeAngelo could still claim those were mistakes from a police officer not fully understanding what is and is not constitutional<

Ah, yeah, I see where this is going. Two scenarios suggest themselves.

First, when the RCSO is forced to investigate someone who is wealthy, powerful or influential, doing something "unconstitutional" forces the DA to drop the case. This is why those people hardly ever show up in drug trafficking cases.

Second, when going after someone who does not have the money, power or influence to protect them, busting up a trafficking operation which has a negative effect on the folks on the low-end of the economic scale has an immediate benefit, whether there's a conviction or not. So, a warrantless search (oops . . . I stumbled into this while investigating an animal cruelty complaint) leading to confiscation of drug paraphernalia, contraband pot, meth lab supplies, etc., still has the effect of shutting them down and spares the DA the expense of a trial. This could be very effective because it deals with the problem in a "frontier justice" kind of way and also saves the expenses of a trial, incarceration, etc., and makes the bad guys "move along," solving the local problem. Sure, they can sue for violation of their civil rights, but they'll never get anywhere with it, and as long as nobody is wrongfully imprisoned, physically injured or unlawfully detained they cannot sue to recover the cost of their lost illegal drugs. It's really a very smart thing to do as long as none of them come back ten years later and kill three or four people . . .

And it also protects the investment of the white-collar traffickers who bring it in through Bob Adams field . . . .

I had always suspected that there was a two-tiered justice system around here; one for nice people, and one for trouble-makers.

Well, since I no longer do legitimate business with people who are trafficking on the side (been there, done that, got the t-shirts . . . literally), I guess it doesn't matter to me. The only thing I've never been able to figure out is how the cops get their kickbacks, but maybe it's covered in their paychecks; you know, paying them top scale to look the other way when lawyers, realtors and business owners (people like the ones who serve on the county commission and city council) do a little bit of trading for "personal use."


aichempty 6 years, 6 months ago on The Jail Report for Oct. 30 to Nov. 5


If you don't like to read about one person's bad experiences with substance abusers, then don't read them. Muck makes some good points about how responsible use should be tolerated -- if it was that easy.

I worked with a program that bailed drug and alcohol offenders out of jail so they could keep their jobs while awaiting trial. Some of them just screwed up and got caught, while others were long-term offenders. Visiting them or their families in their homes told a lot about them.

Abuse is clearly a symptom of deeper problems. Or is it that deeper problems are a symptom of abuse?

New Jersey has legalized pot for people who are terminally ill. I have no problem with that.

If you have a conditions that Colorado says is covered by pot, I have no problem with that.

If you can't get a job flipping burgers because you're a MMJ user, uh, that's your problem. You probably don't know that kitchen workers have some of the highest injury and workmens comp rates, right behind construction workers. Basically, using medication like yours qualifies you to empty trash cans and sweep floors for a company like Goodwill Industries. That's the reality. Maybe your father knows that and wants something better for you.

I've seen what happens to substance abusers on the job, and that's why I don't provide jobs for them around here. It's that simple. I could move away and maybe find a place where I could hire reliable people, but it's not worth it.

I'm not trying to save the world. I'm just telling the truth that folks who sell pot to kids don't tell them. Maybe one of them will read some of this and have second thoughts.

Right or wrong, pot use carries a stigma which affects insurance rates and employment choices. That's real. You might make a law some day that prohibits discrimination against pot users, but when you do, you will see the jobs disappear because of insurance rates, liability issues, and loss of productivity. Business has to make money to stay in business, and that's why we seem them close up around here all the time.

There are lots of disabled people who don't qualify for hazardous jobs. You're just one of them. If you were a lawyer, you probably wouldn't have any problems finding clients. Maybe your answer to a better job is more school? You're a smart guy. Get qualified for a job where pot use is not a problem, and stop complaining about people who won't hire you. (Dare I say, "put that in your pipe and smoke it?")


aichempty 6 years, 6 months ago on Veteran Craig PD officer to take reins at ACET


History proves that even judges have information on cocaine use and developers know about people who will commit murder for hire.

Maybe your definition of "decent" is the thing that needs revision ;-)