U.S. Senate See Full Big Line

(D) J. Hickenlooper*

(R) Somebody

80%

20%

Governor See Full Big Line

(D) Joe Neguse

(D) Phil Weiser

(D) Jena Griswold

60%

60%

40%↓

Att. General See Full Big Line

(D) M. Dougherty

(D) Alexis King

(D) Brian Mason

40%

40%

30%

Sec. of State See Full Big Line

(D) George Stern

(D) A. Gonzalez

(R) Sheri Davis

40%

40%

30%

State Treasurer See Full Big Line

(D) Brianna Titone

(R) Kevin Grantham

(D) Jerry DiTullio

60%

30%

20%

CO-01 (Denver) See Full Big Line

(D) Diana DeGette*

(R) Somebody

90%

2%

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

(D) Joe Neguse*

(R) Somebody

90%

2%

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

(R) Jeff Hurd*

(D) Somebody

80%

40%

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

(R) Lauren Boebert*

(D) Somebody

90%

10%

CO-05 (Colorado Springs) See Full Big Line

(R) Jeff Crank*

(D) Somebody

80%

20%

CO-06 (Aurora) See Full Big Line

(D) Jason Crow*

(R) Somebody

90%

10%

CO-07 (Jefferson County) See Full Big Line

(D) B. Pettersen*

(R) Somebody

90%

10%

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

(R) Gabe Evans*

(D) Yadira Caraveo

(D) Joe Salazar

50%

40%

40%

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 19, 2007 04:28 PM UTC

Denver Council Loser Files Pro Se Challenge

  • 63 Comments
  • by: Colorado Pols

As the Denver Post reports:

City Councilman-elect Paul Lopez won his seat by an overwhelming margin, but he may need the endorsement of a Denver District Court judge before he takes the post next month.

An opposing campaign filed a complaint Friday in District Court alleging Lopez did not meet residency requirements to run for the District 3 seat.

Former candidate JoAnn Phillips and her campaign manager, Alfonso Suazo, filed the complaint without an attorney asking for a judge to declare Lopez ineligible for the seat he won.

Suazo said he and Phillips are talking to attorneys, but noted “it can be cost prohibitive.”

Tweet
Share

Comments

63 thoughts on “Denver Council Loser Files Pro Se Challenge”

    1. …for the November ballot when he told the Election Commission that he had only moved into District 3 on September 1st… or he lied for the May/June election when he claimed that he was a resident prior to May 1st… and/or he lied to traffic court in October, when he was listed as living in District 2.

      It looks like he has a choice: go to jail for voter fraud, be fined for contempt of court, or forfeit a seat he wasn’t eligible to run for?

      Maybe he’ll get some combination of the above, but I don’t see how he walks away from this without the clear conclusion that he lied on electoral and possibly court documents. So however it works out, he’s in for a world of hurt.

      1. …that looked into these allegations was horn swoggled?  All fools, I guess.

        And just how will Lopez be “in for a world of hurt?”  Lessee, his opponent lost BIG time, not some margin of error, the commission turned her down, and now the court turned her down.

        Sounds like, right or wrong, meet Councilman Lopez.

    1. …who can pay for Baker and Botts to represent them out of petty cash.

      In America, we get about as much justice as we can afford.  The Duke lacrosse players had millions to throw at the problem, as did O.J.; the average Joe in the street wouldn’t have had a chance in either case.

      You’re not troubled by this?

      1. So don’t take it so seriously. I had to say something – I didn’t even know what pro se was until a couple of weeks ago, thanks to Tiltawhirl.

        And if I was so rich my family would have more than a ’94 Toyota with a bad rear seal leak to drive around town.

        Rio, for someone trained on the law you sure make a lot of assumptions. Didn’t they tell you to look for facts?

              1. if people would actually “shun” Rio, rather then quietly legitimate him. The downside of the bloggosphere is that people like Rio can (and do) feed on it, enjoying a soapbox that the more discerning mechanisms of the real world would never have offered them. But I agree that this has become mere virtual-noise pollution. Psychoses such as his probably can’t be bludgeoned away.

                  1. the glaring fact you always disregard, encouraging him by doing so. Don’t worry: My presence is ephemeral, and about to evaporate. His is continuous, and sinking deep roots into the fertile soil he has found here. A weed-killer has no purpose other than to kill a weed: It carries no other message, and it is applied for a limited time. The weed itself is much like any other plant, except that it chokes the others out. Which does your garden more harm?

                    1. Thankfully, I can safely ignore the court battle going on over on the diary threads, but riogrande actually adds to the conversation at times – unlike you.

                    2. Not all of those “court battle” threads over their in the diaries are horrible. Come on over and check them out, sometime. Contribute. Bloviate. Opine. Release your inner child. Take a walk on the wild side. You know, all that. :]

                    3. According to Rio, you’ve posted over 37 times for the purpose of vexing him and for no other purpose.  I’m beginning to believe his barking mad theory that you’re Bob Larson or Ted Kazdis. If you want to discredit him, stop lending credibility to his theory and write about something else.  And, if you are Bob Larson, surely you don’t have time to be posting here in between studio time and blessing prayer cloths and minot coins that you’re sending out to hapless fools?

                    4. Bob Larson and Ted Kazdis aren’t the only people whose skins have crawled upon encountering Smith’s combination of arrogance, ignorance, belligerance, self-aggrandizement, and pseudo-intellectual sophistry. Back when I first met him, before law school and before blogs, others who reacted to him as I did used to tell me, “don’t worry, he’s a buffoon, no one will ever take him seriously.” But there have been too many ocassions, in too many times and places, when people just like him have managed to con enough easily-dazzled others with their brand of populism (whether white-hooded, or swastika-ed, or red-bannered, or “sub-committeed on anti-american activities,” or whatever). And the bloggosphere has provided him with the perfect platform.

                      Free speech is a wonderful and dangerous thing. Wouldn’t you want to shake the people (mostly impressionable kids) who are recruited by the free speech on racist web-sites, and somehow find the antidote to that speech? And, you know what, no matter how many times we repeat it, just countering with better arguments isn’t enough to avert horrible tragedies: It may prevail in the long run, but a lot of souls are lost along the way, and a lot of violence committed. There’s really nothing wrong with getting on those sites and screaming “DON’T LISTEN TO THIS CRAP!”

                      Smith may not be a racist, per se, but if you listen to him long enough, and carefully enough, his rant is just as dangerous and destructive in its own way. You may not agree, and that’s what scares me. So I’ve been screaming “DON’T LISTEN TO THIS CRAP!” I’m sorry to have offended your collective sensibilities by doing so.

                      Before I ever signed on and started posting, a lot of you had begun speaking up about him, only knowing that he was annoying, not knowing that he may well be, or become, something a lot less harmless. I’ve seen the same thing happen on other sites, and I’ve tried to galvanize that sentiment a few times, so that Smith never manages to become anything more than a relatively harmless, if annoying, buffoon.

                      It’s up to each one of you to decide if you want to passively (or actively) continue to legitimate him, and feed his ego and ambitions by doing so, or if you want to keep reminding him that he is what any reasonably intelligent person would quickly recogize him to be: An ambitious narcisist, that we, the discerning public, aren’t interested in promoting or tolerating.

                      That’s MY contribution to this discussion. Take it for what it’s worth.

                    5. We (most of us) are on ColoradoPols to express ideas, pass along information, debate, change hearts & minds, get informed through fellowship, and, on occassion, be entertained. The entertainment value of this, however, has long since dissipated.

                      Your presence here is, as you’ve just confessed, is to follow Smith around on whatever blogs, allegedly to disabuse all of us of his false teachings.  Newsflash:  I case you haven’t noticed, all or most of the ColoradoPols commnunity, especially the established community, are quite savvy and have sufficient powers of discernment to sort out the wheat from the chaff.  Don’t you have something better to do?

                    6. Rio does contribute substantive points from time to time and we appreciate those whether we agree with them or not. And when he talks out of his ass we’re not shy about letting him know that too – same as everyone else here.

                      I don’t think he’s cast a spell on anyone here.

                    7. Giving him a place where he can feed his ego is. He’s the kind of person who needs to have the rug pulled out from under him constantly. He doesn’t get the subtlety of holding him accountable from time to time, and otherwise tolerating him: He mistakes that for having a following.

                    8. Nemesis I think you may actually be Rio’s sockpuppet for one of his personalities.  Aside from his paranoia maybe he suffers from Multiple Personality Disorder and you are the expression of his self loathing driven by his inability to live up to his self image created by his narcissistic meglomania.

                      In any case this is ColoradoPols not colorado nut jobs.  I wish neither of you posted.

                    14. “Nemesis” (a.k.a., Bob Larson): Back when I first met him, before law school and before blogs, others who reacted to him as I did used to tell me, “don’t worry, he’s a buffoon, no one will ever take him seriously.”

                      Let’s see, now…. before I went to law school, I was a Big-8 C.P.A. with a master’s in taxation, and about as outspoken on matters political as Casper Milquetoast (not all that good for business).  Moreover, I didn’t have a forum for such activity, even if I were so inclined to speak.  Accordingly, this is an obvious lie.

                      Nemesis: I’ve seen the same thing happen on other sites, and I’ve tried to galvanize that sentiment a few times,

                      As Nemesis has admitted, he has harassed me before on the ‘Net, and will continue to prosecute his private vendetta.  This is consistent with bob Larson’s modus operandi, as he is known to be extraordinarily vindictive.  He even named his first daughter “Brynne Anne” to get back at one of his paramours (who had two daughters named Brenna and Rheanne). 

                      The evidence suggests that it is more likely than not that it is indeed bob Larson, but in any event, it is established beyond cavil that he is a liar.  And in light of that rant, he probably belongs in Ft. Logan.

                    15. how you believe what suits you, and disbelieve what doesn’t. If I’m lying about when I met you, why accept what I say about having pursued you on other blogs? If I’m lying about one thing, I may well be lying about everything.

                      I tell you this: Either everything I’ve said about myself is the absolute truth, or everything I’ve said about myself (except who I am not) is an absolute lie. If I didn’t meet you before law school, then neither have I pursued you on other blogs. It’s all or nothing: Take your pick.

    2. I ain’t bitin’.  Besides, when a case becomes a front news story or involves a public official, all bets are off as to what factors are controlling in how the case gets handled.  In the laptop Larry case, for example, there is increased pressure right now to give him jailtime.

      At least I’m glad to hear someone acknowledge that some folks do cases on their own because it’s cost prohibitive to hire a dream team (as opposed to the alternative assumption, which is that they do it for recreation or as a hobby).

        1. that her experience with her record-breaking diary showed her that this isn’t the appropriate forum for rallying support for her cause.

          1. I just tried to post on my “record breaking” blog but it said it couldn’t find the article. 

            I agree that litigating thru blog is cumbersome but when the defendants refuse to stipulate to facts it is hard to find forums. 

            I really think I’m going to get this almost $30 million dollars. In D.C. court of appeals, 07-5126,/07-7060, I filed an objection and the ABA filed a response.  The ABA thru White and Case, which apparently represents Lloyds of London, did not disagree with facts including:

            “In an apparent effort to prejudice the court, White and Case has misrepresented the facts (these issues are discussed in greater detail in the Rule 52(b) motion that was filed on 01/10/07).
              For instance…The Sieverdings were never allowed to present this story to a jury and the defense council misrepresented the facts to the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals. …By presenting this omission of facts, the ABA has committed fraud on the DC Circuit Court of Appeals. It is undisputed that O’Brien, Butler, McConihe & Schaefer, P.L.L.C.  billed for an ex parte conference between their associate Kevin Kernan and Judge Urbina’s chambers.
              The defense prejudiced Judge Urbina by filing fraudulent reports written by former Colorado Magistrate OE Schlatter after the Colorado defendants had ex parte conferences with him. “  (U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, 07-5126/07-7060 “Sieverding’s consolidated objection to the clerk’s, ABA’s, and White and Case’s motions to dismiss on the basis of untimeliness”, filed 5/31/07)

            You cannot believe how much work I did on this.

            Kay Sieverding

  3. She should file and has a good shot at winning her suit. If he did not live in the district, he should lose his city council seat. These are things a good manager looks at before you run for offive… get your ducks in a row before you do.

    1. Remember the Dick, and his sudden need to establish residence in Wyoming? 

      Sounds like an easy case, but attorneys make it their business to make even the simplest disputes into ordeals.  To paraphrase Bill Bennett’s brother’s comment regarding Paula Jones (can’t remember the name off-hand), if you troll through a law firm with $500,000, you’ll never know what might turn up).

      2. started with the federal judges who dismissed a citizen’s complaint that Dick Cheny wasn’t a resident of Wyoming.  If that court, filled with Bush 1 and Reagan appointees, had decided otherwise, the electoral votes of Texas would have been inadmissable.

        Lessee, a guy has his driver’s license, his employment, two homes, and a university board seat in Texas….but he is a resident of Wyoming? 

        One of the great, unknown earth shattering events/decisions ever in modern history.

          1. …how you could ever avoid favoritism.  Bad decisions, yes. Errors in process, yes.  But the bottom line is that thing know as an OPINION. Those three judges opined that Cheney was a resident of Texas……which any sixth grader could see was wrong.

    2. The commission in charge of verifying residency said they were satisfied that the winner met the requirements. Has the loser shown any compelling evidence that he did not?

      1. I have not seen everything but I hear there is a very strong case that he lived outside the council seat. Just having your bills go to your grandmothers house is fishy to me at best.

      2. indicating his change of residence.  He had been living in Dist. 2 and signed a change of address request indicateing that he would move to his new address (in Dist. 3) in September of 2006.  The document is also dated in September of 2006.  To be eligible to run and serve as councilman from Dist. 3 he would have had to have been a resident as of April of 2006.

        Residency issues are usually difficult to prove and a candidate declaring their legal residence usually is looked favorably on.  However if an individual signs a document related to voter residency that acknowledges that residency is established as of a particular date, it is difficult for that indidvidual to refute that later.

  4. I wasn’t too familiar with this particular tempest in this particular teapot.  I read up a number of posts on Dear Denver and other places.

    I suspect that the court will be unwilling to invalidate this election.  I don’t think courts like overturning elections on technicalities, with good reason.  The residency laws for elections are meant to prevent carpetbaggers from swooping in and getting elected to offices in communities that they know nothing about.  I don’t live in District 3, and know little of Paul Lopez.  But, I don’t think the voters were mislead by his campaign.  I wasn’t as if he had been in Moscow or Beijing or Cairo for 10 years and just arrived back at DIA 6 months ago.  He has literally lived his entire life here in Denver from what I can tell, almost all of it in District 3.

    As has been pointed out at Colorado Confidential on June 6, state law defines “permanent residence” as the place to which one intends to return, regardless of the length of absence.  How this intersects with Denver election law, I’m not sure.  Additionally, his voter registration record refers to his “residential address”, not permanent residence.  But the fact that he won the runoff, and that the Election Commission certified his candidacy, should be enough for the courts.

    In most areas of the law, you must be timely in your objections.  You can’t just wait to see how things turn out, then start objecting if you don’t like the outcome.  If Phillips was concerned about residency, she should have been paying attention when the Election Commission was certifying candidates.  The fact that she didn’t indicates to me that this is purely a political maneuver, not a desire to uphold the principles of democracy.  This is not a recount, nor is there allegation of voter fraud.  Phillips wishes to overturn the clear and unambiguous result of an election.  As much as she may wish the truth were otherwise, the truth is that the voters of District 3 preferred Lopez.

    1. Make what you will of residency requirements, the voters of Dist. 3 spoke out loud and filing this challenge now is undoubtedly sour grapes on the loser’s part.

      I’m open to see what evidence she can produce – the law matters. But if GeoGreg’s analysis is correct then the law is ambiguous enough to make it extremely unlikely that anything substantial will result from this.

      1. I’m no lawyer, but I am a bit of a windbag, as evidenced by my previous post.  Nevertheless, I have one thing to add.

        If this incident prompts the Clerk to issue better guidelines on what residency means and what constitutes evidence of residency, all the better.  If there’s a nice, clear, well-publicized set of rules that everyone understands, it would probably reduce the chances of another controversy like this one.

          1. I’ve posted occasionally, but not for a while.  I’m not involved in politics directly, but it’s an amusing spectator sport at times.

      2. Dang, I can’t shut up…

        But I should say that the whole “timeliness” thing is likely relative. I know that one can appeal a court ruling, for instance, when “new evidence” comes to light.  My knowledge of how that works is limited to a few dimly remembered TV shows, though.  Still, I think that any challenges to the ballot should have been filed before the ballot was certified.  Legal eagles feel free to shoot me down (figuratively, of course).

    2.   I haven’t examined the applicable law[s] here, either, but most states, such as Massachusetts law, about which I am more familiar in this area, differentiate the difference between permanent residency (a/k/a “usual place of abode”) and residence.  As you know, you can have several residences (e.g.,a summer house in Maine; a winter house in Flagstaff).  You have one place, however, that you are thought to return to; that you declare as a primary residence for tax purposes; where you collect or are expected to collect your mail; and upon which your drivers license should state.
        I’m unfamiliar with the particular judicial decision[s] in this case but, your analysis seems quite sound to me.

      1. When I went to college in Texas, I kept my legal residence in my home state of Kansas for all 4 years, even though I spent 9+ months of the year out of the state.  If I had come back home after graduation and immediately run for City Council would I (under Denver rules) qualify as resident?  Chew on that one!

        Given that the DEC apparently asked Lopez for additional documentation, I wouldn’t be surprised if he had inconsistently reported his address on different documents during college.  For instance, what was his “permanent address” given to UCD?  Every college asks for that.  If 100 people from Dist. 3 signed his petition, and the DEC was satisfied that he resided in Dist. 3, then I’m OK with that.  Unless allegations emerge of bribery or other corruption, this really seems pointless.  I think that, in cases like this, it’s better to err on the side of allowing ballot access.

        1. Whether he carpet bagged or not, the Dist. 3 voters resoundingly said he was their guy. As to your earlier post about clarify the residency rules – what, make carpet bagging harder? 😉

      2. but I still get mail there.  Maybe I’ll claim that as my residence and run for office. “I just sepnt 40 years in CO and CA, fully intending to keep my residence in Sarasota.” 🙂

          1. FDR Dems, all of us.  When he dies, I’ll have to stick around to take his place.  Damn.  I really do not like FL.

            Kerouac living in FL three distinct times, maybe four.  On his last return to “Salt Petersburg” he wrote in a letter, “Please, mother, shoot me!”  Of course, he was just as guilty for moving once again. 

            My photos of that house:
            http://www.pbase.com…

  5. It sounds to me like a quick and easy solution for everyone.  She files her proposed facts and affidavits that he does not meet the residency requirements. He can either default or file his objection. He should be able to write his response in an hour. What is the matter with that?  People should be able to go to court when they need to.  She probably knows more about the residency requirements than most lawyers.  Statistically speaking the number of problems presented to the court system with pro se non-prisoner litigants is not even registering, although pro ses sometimes claim discrimination.  The court probably has a published outline for a summary judgment motion.  This is not rocket science.

  6. I don’t know all the details but there is a study that 600 out of 600 pro se complaints filed in the D of Colorado were dismissed. See know your courts for more info

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

96 readers online now

Newsletter

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