President (To Win Colorado)
See Full Big Line
(D) Kamala Harris
(R) Donald Trump
80%↑
20%
CO-01 (Denver)
See Full Big Line
(D) Diana DeGette*
(R) V. Archuleta
98%
2%
CO-02 (Boulder-ish)
See Full Big Line
(D) Joe Neguse*
(R) Marshall Dawson
95%
5%
CO-03 (West & Southern CO)
See Full Big Line
(R) Jeff Hurd
(D) Adam Frisch
50%
50%
CO-04 (Northeast-ish Colorado)
See Full Big Line
(R) Lauren Boebert
(D) Trisha Calvarese
90%
10%
CO-05 (Colorado Springs)
See Full Big Line
(R) Jeff Crank
(D) River Gassen
80%
20%
CO-06 (Aurora)
See Full Big Line
(D) Jason Crow*
(R) John Fabbricatore
90%
10%
CO-07 (Jefferson County)
See Full Big Line
(D) B. Pettersen
(R) Sergei Matveyuk
90%
10%
CO-08 (Northern Colo.)
See Full Big Line
(D) Yadira Caraveo
(R) Gabe Evans
52%↑
48%↓
State Senate Majority
See Full Big Line
DEMOCRATS
REPUBLICANS
80%
20%
State House Majority
See Full Big Line
DEMOCRATS
REPUBLICANS
95%
5%
April 08, 2015 01:23 PM UTC
11 Comments
Previous Pols coverage on Golyansky:http://coloradopols.com/diary/13289/jane-norton-golyansky#sthash.U2u50QTB.dpbs
and
http://coloradopols.com/diary/14136/golyanskys-gun-case-the-part-you-havent-heard#sthash.ODpNhKx5.dpbs
The 37 felony counts against him were dismissed and he pled to one misdo count with one day of probation: http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-94233372.html
While Golyansky is certainly right-wing and has some *colorful* language choices, there is more nuance to this situation than indicated above.
Doug Bruce’s long lost twin brother.
The Colorado State GOP is organized crime – plain and simple. And Laura Waters/Woods is a key stooge.
Did Golyansky testify under oath to anything which he said above? If he did so testify, he has committed perjury.
I reviewed the record of this case which is public and which I as an attorney can access on-line. The receiver is a former judge. He has filed reports six times since mid-2012. They have included monetary items. The receiver has used the money to pay bills and himself. Golyansky fought the appointment of a receiver in the beginning and has moved twice since then to dissolve the receivership. It is still in place by court order. The court clearly states the basis for its decision to appoint and keep the receiver, both factual and legal. Other than fees for the work done, the receiver has not “confiscated” any property of Mr. Golyansky. In addition, the receivership is for a company known as Spartacus which is only one-third owned by Mr. Golyansky. That company only owns one-half the building in which it has an interest. So, it is not his building. Neither Mr. Golyansky nor any of his companies has a lease to occupy the building.
This case arose because Golyansky and his now deceased brother allegedly kept money for their third partner who owned one-third of an interest in a company that owned one half of a downtown building where Golyansky’s jewelry store used to be located. Golyansky refused to pay rent for its use of the building until ordered by the court.
There is a currently pending motion to dissolve the receivership, once again. This was filed in March by Golyansky’s new lawyers (he apparently no longer works with Shawn Mitchell).
The reality is that Mr. Golyansky has no one to blame for this except himself and could have solved the problems easily but stubbornly refused to do so, despite court orders to the contrary. (So much for following the law??) He is allegedly trying to cheat the minority owner in the company out of his investment. And now it appears because of his stubborn failure to follow court orders and his attitude towards his fellow investor, the building has been lost to foreclosure.
So, legislators, you really should look at what is happening when people come to you and propose legislation. Usually, they have an ax to grind and don’t tell the whole story. In my opinion, there is nothing wrong with receivership law in this state. All receivers are subject to the jurisdiction and control of the court. They have to file reports. If the judge isn’t happy s/he can ask for more information. If the person who’s property is subject to the Receivership doesn’t like the report of the receiver or what they are doing, they can object to the judge. There have been numerous hearings and a trial in Mr. Golyansky’s case. The receivership laws of this state have served it well. It has served lenders very well in allowing lenders to try to get their money back when a borrower has defaulted. HEAR THAT!! YOUR BANKER MASTERS WON’T LIKE WHAT YOU HAVE PROPOSED.
Not working anymore with Shawn Mitchell proves that Golyansky, albeit a slimeball, is not a complete fool . . .
. . . as for Ms. Waters Woods, there is now absolutely nothing that this dangerous tool from the house of Neville could do that would ever shock me.
And, btw, ponder for a moment the collective IQ of that bill’s senate sponsorship/village idiot roster (Woods, Holbert, Marble, Neville T., Cooke, Baumgardner, Grantham) ??
Thanks, Craig, for cutting though the bull with facts.
I know this is an old post… but you are 100% correct.
His stubbornness cost him and his brothers tones of money, health and a perfectly good business (two of them) that his brother built and all because of his stubbornness, incompetence and stupidity. It is very hard to admit, that why he blames everything and everyone, but himself.
Golyansky is one cold-eyed, mean-looking mofo. I can well believe that selling guns to criminals wouldn’t faze him one bit.
Golyanski was one of only 3 people to testify in support of SB231 on Monday. about 20 people spoke against it. Among other things (like telling the federal government what to do), SB231 would disarm all the revenue agents who deal in enforcement of laws dealing with marijuana, liquor, tobacco, gaming and racing (industries where there can be serious criminal elements).
Funny things about this: 16 cosponsors of this bill also are co-sponsors of HB1168 — a bill that would allow any person with a CCW permit into a public K-12 school.
It makes NO sense to want to disarm officers (who have extensive training, and renew their training) who have to go into situations where there can be a criminal element, and at the same time allow about anyone to take a handgun into an environment with children. (Despite what the gun rights crowd says….getting a CCW permit doesn’t mean you are a law-abiding-citizen) just that you’ve never been arrested for a felony or domestic violence offense, have a protection order, or aren’t adjudicated mentally ill.
It’s baffling to see some people defend the actions of a governmental system that is throwing a fit when someone like Mr. Golyansky points out the abuses he’s suffered.
Do you really think that losing his business of 16 years, his real estate, his bank account, and his very livelihood is justified simply because the court appointed receiver doesn’t want to be held accountable?
Are you really in favor of government without accountability, self control, or temperance?
Or do you just wish that type of abuse on those you disagree with politically?
Maybe read Craig’s post above. The fact is that Mr. Golyansky’s biggest liability in this entire action has been himself, his fictional account of the events and your ridiculous hyperbole notwithstanding.