.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

Case OS 2007 0022 Judgment

The volume on the following audio files is low but the clarity is very good.  Use headphones or earphones.

January 14th Trial Part 1   64 megs     Note:  Right click and save file to your computer for listening.

January 14th Trial Part 2   20 megs     Note:  Right click and save file to your computer for listening.

January 14th Trial Part 3   36 megs     Note:  Right click and save file to your computer for listening.

Denial of Summary Judgment

Hearing Notice and Procedural Orders

ECDC Responses

6 Jan 07 In response to questions from local charitable organizations, I researched how the new Elbert County Sales & Use Tax will impact local non-profit organizations. Here are the results of that research. [Read more…]

Claimant Request for Summary Judgment

11/28 update:  Order Vacating Hearing and Notice to Set

11/24 update:  Charles Groesbeek of the ECDC asked for and received a continuance from the court.  The hearing will be rescheduled.

Notice of hearing

A hearing on the 1B complaint has been set for Monday, November 26th at 10:00 a.m. at the Office of Administrative Courts, 633 17th Street, 14th Floor, Denver, CO 80203.

Anyone with evidence relevant to this complaint is hereby invited to contact Brooks Imperial at (303) 725-9662.

1B Complaint to Secretary of State

The 1B sales tax passed, 2904 to 2694, or 51.9% to 48.1%. Term limit extensions went down by a larger margin.

I’ll bet anyone a hamburger that the tax&spend Republicans will be back to the voters next year looking for more money.

See: Trouble in Paradise   “The sales tax is in direct opposition to the Elbert County Republican Platform and it puts a burr in the chaps of the fiscal responsibility types who want no taxes whatsoever. The other side realizes that the county finances have been so badly mismanaged that they have to do something or the voters are going to go through the ceiling about the abysmal state of the roads. You can’t find a democrat to blame for this one boys and girls.”

Maybe so, maybe not, however, the juxtaposition of “fiscal responsibility” opposite “pro-tax” speaks volumes.

Norm, Norm, Norm. Normally I don’t respond to ad hominem attacks [ Questioning integrity Ranchland News 11/1/07 ] but this time I will because I like you a lot.

First:

RE: “First, I must question the integrity of this committee, which in turn questions the contents of their flyer.”

See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem “An ad hominem argument, also known as argumentum ad hominem (Latin: “argument to the person”, “argument against the man”) consists of replying to an argument or factual claim by attacking or appealing to a characteristic or belief of the person making the argument or claim, rather than by addressing the substance of the argument or producing evidence against the claim. The process of proving or disproving the claims is thereby subverted, and the argumentum ad hominem works to change the subject.

It is most commonly used to refer specifically to the ad hominem abusive, or argumentum ad personam, which consists of criticizing or personally attacking an argument’s proponent in an attempt to discredit that argument.”

Questioning the integrity of this committee [ OCC registration ] in no way questions the contents of their flyer [ OCC flyer ].

Second:

RE: “The ballot is quite specific the revenue from sales/use tax will be spent only for Capital Improvements, which includes hard surfacing roads among other capital improvements.”

See:[ County Sales Tax Ballot ] The ballot measure actually says that funds will be applied to “road and bridge capital and operating expenditures.” The measure actually uses that language twice, once to name the fund and a second time to describe how the fund will be used. Also, the measure does not in any way define the substance of capital expenditures, or the split between capital and operating expenses.

The measure is a blank check.

Third:

RE: “They state that Douglas County sales tax is 10 percent. A call to the Douglas County confirmed the county sales tax is 1 percent[.]”

See: [ Colorado Sales and Use Tax Rates ] If you add up all the sales and use taxes in Castle Rock and/or Parker, you get somewhere between 7.5% and 8.0% currently in effect. Looking at the 2007 Douglas County ballot (see: [ Douglas County 2007 ballot ] ) you will find existing sales taxes continued, new sales taxes proposed, and a variety of proposed property taxes.

A rough estimate of 10% is reasonable.

Fourth:

RE: “TABOR prohibits the commissioners to increase the county budget by more than 6 percent per year even if the funds were available – refer to TABOR.”

See: [ County Sales Tax Ballot ] 1B says that funds may be collected and spent without limit “under Article X, Section 20 of the Colorado Constitution [TABOR] or any other law[.]”

This is a “de-bruced” measure, exempt from TABOR limits.

Fifth:

RE: “It is one thing to be critical, but not to offer two or more solutions to improving our county transportation system is beyond apprehension.”

Pro 1B arguments have ignored dramatic and on-going revenue growth in the county budget over the last decade, and have failed to ascertain why these additional millions have not led to the desired end they seek of improving road conditions. Each year, Elbert County collects additional millions in revenue, yet now, these particular additional millions will fix things.

I don’t think so my friend.

Sincerely, Brooks

—–Original Message—–
From: B.I.
Sent: Thursday, October 25, 2007 12:17 PM
To: JH Schroeder
Subject: Funding pro-1B flyers

In the 10/25/07 ECN paper the Thomassons allege;

1) the pro-1B flyer cost $38K, and

2) the ECDC paid a portion of that expense, and

3) the ECDC receives funds from the BOCC.

If these allegations are true, the non profit ECDC may fall under a “strict construction” of government councils proscribed by C.R.S. 1-45-117 from funding issue advocacy in an election.

att. C.R.S. 1-45-117

“The purpose of this section is to prohibit the state government and its officials from spending public funds to influence the outcome of campaigns for political office or ballot issues. Colo. Common Cause v. Coffman, 85 P.3d 551 (Colo. App. 2003), aff’d, 102 P.3d 999 (Colo. 2004).

“This section must be strictly construed. It is an established principle that statutes regarding the use of public funds to influence the outcome of elections are strictly construed. Coffman v. Colo. Common Cause, 102 P.3d 999 (Colo. 2004).”

CRS 1-45-117

(click to enlarge)

(click to enlarge)

Remember the tax position of “your neighbors in Elbert County” next time they run for Elbert County Republican precinct committeeperson, district captain, party officer, or public office in a precinct caucus, county assembly, primary election, general election or vacancy appointment. 

2004 GOP Platform

“We believe that good government is based on a system of limited taxes and spending.”

“Many Democrats, however, believe the government has a right to claim the money earned by working Americans.”

“The taxation system should not be used to redistribute wealth or fund ever-increasing entitlements and social programs.”

“High taxes and unreasonable regulations stifle new and expanded businesses and thwart the creation of job opportunities and prosperity.”

The Election Notice recently mailed to “All Registered Voters” in Elbert County doesn’t add up.

Here’s the relevant section:

 Consider:

Over the last 4 years spending grew by 92% from 2003.  If you extrapolate the historical rate of growth on a straight line to 5 years, (4 x rate = 5 x .92; rate = 1.15), you get estimated 2008 spending without the sales tax, of $29,380,195.  After adding in the sales tax impact, the new total is actually $31,349,745. 

This comes to a 19% total budget increase in one year!  (Not subject to Elbert County’s fiscal year spending limits of course.)

If we assume that county revenues continue to grow at the average rate of yearly increase, the county will see an increase in 2008 close to the amount they seek under the new sales tax.  So, why can’t the county allocate increased revenues from the general fund to road and bridge instead of going to the voters for more tax money?    

[Read more…]

[Read more…]