May 05, 2007 11:56 PM UTC

PART THREE: Doug Lamborn's 1996 and 2006 Dubious Achievement Awards.

• 0 Comments
• by: DemoGirl

1996:  The “My-Kid-Did-It, Not-Me” Award from the Rocky Mnt. News, 5/9/1996.

2006:  The “My-Supporters-Did-It, Not-Me” Award from the 5th CD.
.

.
1996: [How Doug Lamborn earned his award from the Rocky Mountain News.]

After his teen-aged son and another youth set a series of arson fires in 1993 that caused an estimated $138,597 in damages, Lamborn balked at paying a court-mandated $3,500 fine. An El Paso County Juvenile Court judge in 1994 ordered Lamborn’s son and another youth to pay $37,786 in restitution for the arsons. In July, 1995, Lamborn’s $3,500 share was ordered by the court to be paid under Colorado’s parental responsibility law, which holds parents partially liable for criminal damages caused by their children.  In March, 1996 Lamborn’s refusal to pay the $3,500 threw him into a heated feud with Global Companies owner, John Barney, who estimated his losses from the boys’ arson as being in excess of $130,000, and landed Lamborn back in court after Barney complained to the district attorney that Lamborn never made the payment.  “I always heard you lead by example,” said Barney. “What do other juveniles think when a legislator is in there saying, `I’m looking for a way to beat the system?’ ”  “The other boy’s parents were extremely remorseful for what happened,” said Barney.  “They took responsiblity for their son’s actions – right down to making him go down and finish cleaning up the site. But here this guy stands up and says `I see a loophole in the law.’ What does that do for that boy who says: `Oh boy, my daddy shows me how we can get around this.’ ”  Lamborn’s argument before Juvenile Magistrate Regina Walters, in attempting to dodge the court ordered payment of $3,500 was, “If parents in any way participated in or condoned wrong behavior they should be held reponsible,” he said. “But if they had no role in the matter, they should be absolved.”  Juvenile Magistrate Regina Walters disagreed with Lamborn’s interpretation of the parental responsbility law. “You have an obligation to supervise who your child is with and what your child is doing,” she said.  Other victims of the boys’ arson included Gleneagle Sertoma, American Family Insurance, and Donald Wescott Fire Department. 

But, this isn’t the end of the story. 

In 1995, while the case was pending against Lamborn’s son and the other youth, Lamborn had a role in the House Judiciary Committee defeating a proposed bill by Representative Doug Friednash, D-Denver, who wanted to raise the parental responsibility limits from $3,500 to  “no limits”.  Lamborn then voted against the bill again on the House floor when the cap was raised from $3,500 to $10,000.  But, he voted for the final version of the bill–with the $5,000 cap–saying, “I felt that with the effects of inflation that amount should have been raised.” Lamborn had not disclosed to the House that an action involving his son was pending.  Afterwards, some observers wondered whether he should have disclosed his case and possibly abstained from voting on the bill.  Lamborn’s response at the time was that he didn’t see a conflict because the 1995 law “was to set the future policy of Colorado and won’t apply to old incidents.”  However, by limiting parental responsibility to $5,000,  Doug Lamborn did cap his liability at $5,000 for any future incidents of arson as his son might commit in his minor years.  If he did commit any more, Lamborn helped to cap his wife’s and his responsibility at $5,000.  [If you are so inclined, you may explore some of  Doug Lamborn’s past here:  http://news.google.c….  But, it is within this context of Doug Lamborn trying to dodge his legal obligations while voting on parental responsibility laws that the Rocky Mountain News awarded him it’s 1996 Dubious Achievement Award.]

Nor was it the end of the story in 1998.

On June 2, 1998, in an article titled, “Candidate for Senate drops out” the Gazette reported on Tom Ratteree’s dropping out of the race for Senate District 9, the seat that Doug Lamborn had been appointed to replace Charles Duke, reporting as follows, “The campaign also featured attacks on Lamborn from Ratterree supporters who distributed critical fliers describing Lamborn’s efforts to avoid paying court-ordered restitution in 1993 when his now 18-year-old son was convicted in several arson cases. . . . After the flier was distributed, Lamborn’s son reached a financial settlement with the man who published it. As part of that agreement, the man withdrew the flier.”

As part of his campaign, Ratterree had attempted to distribute the flyers at the Republican El Paso County Assembly in 1998, but apparently was barred from doing so possibly by Wayne Williams, then the Republican County Chairman on the alleged basis that the party had no way of identifying who was distributing them.  Ratterree filed a complaint that his campaign was harmed by the inability to distribute the flyers and that Lamborn was allowed to participate in the decision to pull the flyers. 

Nor was it the end of the story in 2006.

The same June 29, 1998, article in the Gazette, also reported, “Then came nasty allegations in the campaign from Lamborn supporters who distributed a letter falsely suggesting Ratterree took his dying wife OFF life support systems in 1991. Ratterree opposes euthanasia. Mary Ratterree died in 1991 after a long battle with cancer. At her instruction, she was NEVER PLACED ON life support. Ratterree was with her at the hospital when she died.”  As the Gazette noted, with Ratteree’s dropping out of the race, Doug Lamborn was virtually assured winning election to the Senate District 9 seat in 1998. 

Whether it’s a false letter in 1998, a false “wedding cake” flyer in 2006, false accusations of taking money from terrorist sympathizers, false radio ads, etc., the easiest race for one to win is the one where your principal opponents withdraw after having been attacked by one’s “supporters” with tactics that are so viral they shouldn’t be reported to the FEC but to the CDC.  In 2006, they stayed in the race but in the similar sense that Doug Lamborn didn’t want to take responsibility for his son’s burning down people’s property, neither does he want to take responsibility for his supporters burning down people’s reputations. 

And, with the last thought, above, in mind, please stay tuned for next week’s fourth and final instalment on Doug Lamborn, the one devoted to his Dubious Achievement Award of 2006:  The “My-Supporters-Did-It, Not-Me” Award from the 5th Congressional District.

EDITED 5/8/2007 by DEMOGIRL to add links to all remaining parts of the four part series:
PART FOUR: Doug Lamborn’s 2006 Dubious Achievement Award . . . and . . . adieu from Demogirl.
http://www.coloradop…
PART ONE: Chuck Gosnell and the CCofC’s Lamborn Lambporn money trail.
http://www.coloradop…
PART TWO: Please answer some questions about your past, Mr. Lamborn.
http://www.coloradop…