CO-04 (Special Election) See Full Big Line

(R) Greg Lopez

(R) Trisha Calvarese

90%

10%

President (To Win Colorado) See Full Big Line

(D) Joe Biden*

(R) Donald Trump

80%

20%↓

CO-01 (Denver) See Full Big Line

(D) Diana DeGette*

90%

CO-02 (Boulder-ish) See Full Big Line

(D) Joe Neguse*

90%

CO-03 (West & Southern CO) See Full Big Line

(D) Adam Frisch

(R) Jeff Hurd

(R) Ron Hanks

40%

30%

20%

CO-04 (Northeast-ish Colorado) See Full Big Line

(R) Lauren Boebert

(R) Deborah Flora

(R) J. Sonnenberg

30%↑

15%↑

10%↓

CO-05 (Colorado Springs) See Full Big Line

(R) Dave Williams

(R) Jeff Crank

50%↓

50%↑

CO-06 (Aurora) See Full Big Line

(D) Jason Crow*

90%

CO-07 (Jefferson County) See Full Big Line

(D) Brittany Pettersen

85%↑

 

CO-08 (Northern Colo.) See Full Big Line

(D) Yadira Caraveo

(R) Gabe Evans

(R) Janak Joshi

60%↑

35%↓

30%↑

State Senate Majority See Full Big Line

DEMOCRATS

REPUBLICANS

80%

20%

State House Majority See Full Big Line

DEMOCRATS

REPUBLICANS

95%

5%

Generic selectors
Exact matches only
Search in title
Search in content
Post Type Selectors
June 23, 2010 12:39 AM UTC

Lawsuit Against Norton May Have Merit

  • 68 Comments
  • by: MountainDem

( – promoted by Colorado Pols)

I posted a diary last week of a complaint against Jane Norton by a Tom Bjorklund and the supposed problems with her petitions.

http://www.coloradopols.com/di…

Today I read in the Grand Junction Sentinel a little more about the complaint and wondered if Josh Penry had a valid point about Bjorklund wasting tax dollars to file a frivilous lawsuit against Jane. http://www.gjsentinel.com/news…

So I submitted an email to Mr. Bjorklund to get his story and was pleasantly surprised to get a reply from him.

He said that I was free to share this info with anyone I wanted, so here you go.

Here is my email to Tom Bjorklund on his companies contact form http://www.tacticaldatasolutio…

Mr. Bjorklund,

I read the Sentinel article today about your lawsuit against Norton.  Why are you hiding your case by refusing to talk to the media?

And while Penry sounds absurd, he has a point that you may be wasting taxpayer dollars by trying to use the courts to defeat Jane.  

It’s a fair question, do you have a legitimate case?

Thanks,

Mountain Dem

This was his response


Subject: Your inquiry

Mountan Dem:

Absolutely, Jane Norton’s petitions will be clearly shown to be far short of the sufficient 1500 in not just one Congressional district, but insufficient in 6 out of 7, maybe even all seven.  The data and the scanned petition sections don’t lie.

The suit is against Buescher in his official capacity, not Norton, because that is how the challenge process works.  

And, I am not hiding anything.  You are the first to even email me about the case.  Not even a single reporter has called, let alone our infamous Gary Harmon.  I am happy to relay and show the facts to you if you will do an honest job of presenting them.

My company, Tactical Data Solutions was given 5 days in which to scan 1881 sections and over 5186 pages.  When we ran our data search functions we quickly found problems all over the place.  It was as if Jane Norton’s campaign bombarded the SOS with so many invalid signatures and circulators in an attempt to overwhelm the staff with the hope that enough bad data would get by.

We found thousands of accepted signatures by the same illegal circulators who the SOS office had already rejected.  They mistakenly accepted circulators that the same office had rejected in other sections of the petition.

The SOS office must have been overwhelmed with a mass of sloppy petitions that many of the invalid circulators slipped through (even though the exact same circulators had been rejected on other sections).

Is this a waste of taxpayer money?  Hardly, I’m standing up for the taxpayers that Jane Norton’s campaign is trying to fool with their invalid circulators and bad signatures.  

Josh Penry is being evasive about the process they used to gather signatures.  I have verified lots of petitions over the years and I have never seen such a sloppy job on such a large scale.  I calculated that Norton’s petition process cost the taxpayers over $200,000 in SOS staff time alone to weed through as many as they could.  I am sure a quick call to the SOS office would give you the accurate amount that Norton’s sloppy petitions cost Colorado Taxpayers.

The data we reviewed showed the lions share of signatures were collected at the last moment by Norton’s out of state circulators.  That is when dozens of paid circulators descended on Colorado to come to Jane’s rescue.  Many of their addresses are listed as motels, trailer parks and temporary housing.  They blitzed the state in an attempt to qualify by the deadline.

The problem, besides not having enough in-state support to get on the ballot, was that most of Norton’s professionals were not legally registered to vote as R’s so they could circulate petitions.  

Therefore all of their petitions should have been rejected, just like so many of the ones the SOS caught.  TDS caught them all.

We even have evidence of a foreign immigrant circulator who we believe was able to sneak some signatures past.  That is just the tip of the iceberg.

I’ve nothing to hide.  You’re welcome to share this information with anyone you wish.

Jane Norton’s thugs may try to defame me and the work I did to expose their poor attempt at getting on the ballot, but I am looking forward to having my day in court to let the judge rule on the facts.

Regards,

Tom Bjorklund

Sounds like they may have a real case

 

Tweet
Share

Comments

68 thoughts on “Lawsuit Against Norton May Have Merit”

      1. I’m pretty sure he’ll be able to prove that illegal petition circulators were used; the question is then if enough signatures will be invalidated in one of the districts to knock her off the ballot.

  3. Why isn’t the SoS office buying it – sounds like it could save the state a lot of money. If he prevails in his case, that would be an incredibly strong argument for the system.

    And if Norton is dropped from the ballot due to invalid signatures, what an ignoble end to the anointed candidate.

    2. According to the email and browsing their website Tactical Data appears to have the experience and credentials.

      If TDS is able to use technology to vastly improve the validity of petitions then the state needs to be changing their operation. If TDS prevails then I would think it would be wise for candidates to have their petitions analyzed by such a service to identify problems before the petitions are turned in. At least they would be confident the petitions would withstand any scrutiny.

      I know, I know a lot of ifs.  The case laid out in the email will cause some serious hand wringing within the Norton HQ for the next couple of days.  

      2. No one who knows anything about Tom Bjorklund thinks there is anything remotely credible in the complaint. He couldn’t even spell the Secretary of State’s name right.  He makes some truly insane remarks in just the email.  $200,000 in staff time? Did he fail remedial math? The SOS office reviewed well over a dozen candidates petitions in two weeks, so how does the total cost of government bureaucrat time divided by say twelve campaigns equal $200,000?

        Bjorklund was put up to this by Buck. And supporters try to claim Buck is the one running a clean campaign? Buck has fought dirty in the legal arena his whole career. He’s got more ethics problems than Flava Flav has kids.

          1. Bjorklund was put up to this by Buck?

            The basis of this factual assertion is?

            Fought dirty in the legal arena his whole career?

            The specifics of this factual assertion is?

            More ethics problems than Flava Flav has kids?

            Your evidence of the above is?

            Thought so.  

            1. Norton and Bennet discovered to have extensive and insurmountable ethics violations leading up to primary.

              Although I know this statement has no basis in fact, I am free to post it without concern for the truth, as evidenced by Norton supporter, Mile High and Bennet supporter Dem 36

               

            2. While a prosecutor at the U.S. Attorney’s office Buck, in an attempt to undermine the U.S. Attorney appointed by President Clinton, attempted to undermine cases by contacting defense attorneys to tell them the office had turned down cases several times before filing them.  He was attempting to give the public the impression the cases were not well founded and politically motivated.

                  1. is that if they were kept confidential as required by law, how would you know what is in them. This could be like the Voorhis case where the release of the info is a bigger story than the info.

                    1. The news media needs to ask Mr. Buck for a release for his federal personnel files and ask him why he left the U.S. Attorney’s office, and then follow-up.

                    2. So it is public law community gossip.  Sounds like a solid defense to a violation of someone’s privacy interests in their personnel files to me.

                    3. No one is asking anyone to violate his privacy rights. The question is will Mr. Buck sign a release for his personnel files? Don’t you agree that would clear this up?

                    4. In fact, prosecutors have a duty to disclose to defense counsel things adverse to their case in the interests of justice.  So what did he disclose, to whom, and under what circustances?

                      Defense Attorneys (Public defender law community) tend not to like prosecutors, particularly prosecutors that kick their ass and have a 100% conviction rate for murderers.

                      Just sayin’.

                    6. Check disciplinary history of Ken Buck under the Office of Attorney Regulation. Nada!

                      http://www.coloradosupremecour…

                      If Ken Buck committed such a devious offense why was he merely demoted by the  Clinton appointee US Attorney Strickland?  

                      For a different perspective on the case that Strickland used to demote Ken Buck let’s turn to the Federal Judge. The defendant was sentenced to ” ONE DAY of PROBATION”. Here is a summary of Dave Kopel’s take on the case.

                      (Strickland) In 1999-2001, he served as U.S. Attorney for Colorado under the Clinton administration. His tenure was marked by an extremely abusive prosecution of a pawn shop run by local pro-gun activist Greg Golyansky and his brother and cousin. Strickland brought a 37-count felony indictment – but the case was settled on October 29, 2002, with a plea to a two paperwork violations. The judge’s view of the merits of the case is illustrated by the sentence imposed on Golyansky: one day of probation.

                      The previous United States Attorney (Clinton appointee Henry Solano) had declined to prosecute the Golyansky case. Resistance to the case from the career attorneys in Colorado office was apparently strong enough so that Strickland had to use outsiders to handle the case, including an attorney hired from the powerhouse lobbying firm where Strickland had formerly worked.

                      http://www.davekopel.com/NRO/2…

                      So let me get this right: Ken Buck (Career Attorney as mentioned above) committed a string of ethical violations and Strickland did not fire him.  He committed a string of ethical violations and no one filed a complaint with the Office of Attorney Regulation.

                      Sure!!!!!

                    8. …talked about it within the “public law community,” the information was disclosed lawfully and without intrusion into anyone’s personnel files.

                    9. All that needs to be done to clear this up is for Mr. Buck to sign a release for all of his personnel files and then the news media needs to follow-up. I can’t see any reason why Mr. Buck wouldn’t do that.

                    10. The defense attorney has a name I bet.  Let him tell us the circumstances of how a prosecutor telling him information that might help his client was improper.  

                      How do you know it is in his personnel file?  The person who told you what is in his personnel file would not be violating his privacy rights?  

                    11. Personal attacks aside, all that needs to be done to clear this up is for Mr. Buck to sign a release for all of his personnel files and the news media can follow-up by asking questions about the circumstances surrounding Mr. Buck’s departure from the U.S. Attorney’s office.  

                    13. All I’m asking is for Mr. Buck to sign a release for all of his personnel files so the public, the voters, can make their own judgment about his activities and the news media can then follow-up. I can’t see why Mr. Buck wouldn’t agree to sign a release.

                    14. Not to defend Buck here but only an idiot would turn over personnel files to the public.  Would you turn yours over #36?

                      My union has worked very hard to keep those files under wraps.  Any HR person worth their salt will list area’s to be improved.  

                      Releasing personnel files is just unAmerican.  Although, maybe Buck is that stupid.  We shall see.

                    15. Shan’t we Sybil? How are you and the rest of your personalities doing today?

                    16. In Mr. Buck’s case, he is asking us to elect him United States Senator. His background and behavior as a public official is relevant for the voters to judge his capacity to serve us as a senator, including his behavior as an assistant U.S. attorney.

                      As far as my personnel file, I would release it, nothing to hide.

                    17. Has she had any proceedures you might be interested in?  Treated for any disease you think relevant?

                1. Every attorney knows that the Office of Attorney Regulation investigates complaints of wrongdoing. Ken Buck has no history with the OAR. If you were/are an attorney you are fully aware of the OAR.

                  You also seem confused regarding personnel files. If the allegation resulted from some action or inaction on a case the case and the facts surrounding the alledged wrongdoing would be a part of the investigation within the personnel file.

                  Waiting for your learned rebuttal counselor.  

                  1. I’m not referring to the Office of Attorney Regulation (OAR).  The federal government has its own ethics office that investigates federal employees.  The Colorado OAR has nothing to do with this. That is why I suggested the media ask Mr. Buck for a waiver for all of his federal personnel files.

                    Second, a criminal prosecution case file might be referred to in a federal ethics investigation but the criminal case file would not be included in the file of the federal employee being investigated.

                    1. Buck is apparently willing to open up all records in a unique show of transparency. Let’s see he has released all of his DA budgets, 10 years of tax returns, and now his private personnel records from the US Attorney’s Office. This will not appease Norton or her attack dogs. I am sure they will now seek his elementary school records.

                      http://www.denverpost.com/sear…

          2. In the last DA election, he hosted a fundraiser and invited all of the local defense attorneys, including several in the public defender’s office.  Apparently enough people RSVP’d absolutely aghast that he hadn’t thought through what kind of conflict of interest he was creating, so the whole thing quietly went away.

            1. It was pointed out to him.  

              and then he, OMG, changed course.  

              Oh my God!

              He must be unethical,lazy and stupid.

              He should never make mistakes or, if human, when he does he should not change course.

              Thanks for sharing that ghastly tale of ethical abuses and fighting dirty his entire legal career.  

              I am sure he will be appropriately mocked and scorned.

              1. I don’t really know anything about this, and this is actually the first I’ve ever read of this, but this whole thing seems really simple.

                if what people are saying that this file is locked or whatever is true, then Ken Buck needs to release it. If there are any dubious questions raised, he needs to come clean about them.

                It seems to me like anything short of that ought to disqualify him from holding elected office, from DA on up.

                If he won’t be honest with the voters about his background, how can we trust him to represent us?

                I think being transparent about this whole thing would be at the very least a good symbolic measure by his campaign — assuming he doesn’t have anything to hide, of course.

                colawman, you seem to be really plugged into that campaign. Maybe you work for them or something? Could you ask them to release the records and be transparent and honest etc.?

                  1. Buck opened some records, which is all R36 was asking for.

                    Do you and h-man now acknowledge that it was an ok and good thing to do, as R36 said?

                    Or do you cling to your  “Buck can do no wrong” kine of defense?

                    1. Personnel files are protected for privacy reasons.  The person who took the adverse action was Suthers who is a member in good standing of Team Norton.  I would have liked him to man up to being the source. Something about the state AG violating people’s civil rights bothers me. Buck apparently thought it was best to get it out sooner as opposed to later so he disclosed the documents.

                      Here is what is troubling to me.  Say I want to start a false rumor, like Jane Norton had 15 abortions.  Should I then be entitled to force her to produce all of her medical records so I can dig in to them and find out I couldn’t find any records of abortions, but she is on antidepressants?  I don’t think that is proper.  

                      How was this any different?

                    2. What was the comparable rumor here for Buck?

                      FWIW – if the story is that Suthers told team Norton that they should focus more on why Buck left the US Attorney’s office, where’s the scandal?

  5. Buck is upset that Norton got 30,000 signatures.  He appeared before a couple thousand to get on the ballot.  Norton collected 30,000 signatures.  

    Norton’s grassroots petition drive will mean votes.  30,000 of them.

    Advantage:  Norton.

    A frivilous suit will be met with quick dismissal and potential charge back for Attny’s fees and costs to the court.  Norton isn’t concerned about it.  In fact she will probably go on offense about this suit soon.  I would be more concerned if Norton were silent about this – but my guess is she will highlight it as a dirty campaign trick.

    Norton’s connections in Washington will allow her to hit the ground running.  Colorado will benefit from her connections and her ability to get earmarks and money to a state that needs cash to run it’s shrinking government.

    Norton recognizes that Colorado residents don’t mind paying more in taxes to fund the services we all need.  Colorado citizens get more in services then we pay in taxes.  With her ability to go to Washington and get more money through her connections, Colorado wins again.

    She has outpaced Buck in sizeable donations.

    Advantage:  Norton.

     

        1. She doesn’t need 10,500 signatures.  She needs 1,500 valid signatures in each of 7 congressional districts.  Less than 1,500 in any one, she is on the sidelines.

          1. My bet is that the ballots are already being printed.  No judge is going to rule to stop the presses and reprint ballots no matter what the “evidence”.

    2. Norton’s connections in Washington will allow her to hit the ground running.  Colorado will benefit from her connections and her ability to get earmarks and money to a state that needs cash to run it’s shrinking government.

      Norton recognizes that Colorado residents don’t mind paying more in taxes to fund the services we all need.  Colorado citizens get more in services then we pay in taxes.  With her ability to go to Washington and get more money through her connections, Colorado wins again.

      This is exactly what is driving the deficit. Earmarks, grants, and pork barrel are not free. It is taxes and debt that fund the gifts you want Norton to bear. No wonder the Republican Party continues to disappoint. People like you supporting candidates like her that maintain the status quo.  

    1. I am a Bennett guy and am looking forward to him beating Buck in the general. If Buck does win though I think I could tolerate him for six years.  I have been wrong before though!

    1. Probably only lawyers have standing to bring the suit.  

      But if I were writing the laws it would be any citizen as long as they are a registered elector and registered in the party that the candidate is running to represent in the General.  In this case I think R.

      But frankly I think a crazy person would have to be the one.  She turned in 35,000 signatures.  That is 35000.  She only needed 10,500.

    3. Since this is a governor’s race in question, it would be any registered voter in Colorado.

      But is someone wanted to challenge one of the candidiates’ petitions in HD7, for example (either the sufficient one or the insufficient one), the challenge would have to be brought by an registered voter from HD7.

        1. For some reason I keep mixing up which Republicans are going to be beat by Bennet or Romanoff and which ones are going to be beat by Hick!

Leave a Comment

Recent Comments


Posts about

Donald Trump
SEE MORE

Posts about

Rep. Lauren Boebert
SEE MORE

Posts about

Rep. Yadira Caraveo
SEE MORE

Posts about

Colorado House
SEE MORE

Posts about

Colorado Senate
SEE MORE

65 readers online now

Newsletter

Subscribe to our monthly newsletter to stay in the loop with regular updates!