“I think we’ve mentioned, many a time, that we’re willing to settle — when it comes to the attorneys fees — if the plaintiffs would like to approach us, and discuss them reasonably.”
We’re listening here to Archuleta County Attorney Todd Weaver, near the conclusion of a rather lengthy exchange at the August 6 Board of County Commissioners meeting. ‘Liberty Zone’ plaintiff Wayne Bryant, during the public comment portion of the meeting, had tried to hand a check for awarded attorneys fees to BOCC chair Ronnie Maez, but Mr. Maez had refused to accept the check. After explaining (in a somewhat aggressive tone?) why the County had refunded all of the ‘Liberty Zone’ checks, attorney Weaver suggested that a settlement could probably be reached, even though the case was ruled to be ‘frivolous.’
Mr. Weaver: “The [Colorado] Supreme Court said, ‘We’re not going to hear this case,’ so the Court of Appeals ruling stands… Under the Colorado Rules of Civil Procedure, when you have a judgement for a money amount, you are allowed to issue what are known as ‘judgement interrogatories.’ That is, information about bank accounts, property ownership, car ownership, all the things that you can go after, legally, to collect a judgement. And that’s what was issued.”
“When the plaintiff’s tried to pay what they call their portion of [the $18,565.50 fee award] they decided to submit this paperwork, saying that in exchange for receiving [their portion], the County and the District Court wouldn’t go after the plaintiffs for any additional money.”
These payments were made to the County Treasurer, who — in attorney Weaver’s opinion — has no authority to waive any rights the BOCC or Courts may have.
Now, if the plaintiffs approached the BOCC directly with a proposal… maybe something could be worked out.
“But this type of backdoor tactics, is quite simply unacceptable. And on the issue of the remaining attorneys fees awarded by the Court of Appeals, that hearing has been set for December 4. And that is the only remaining, outstanding issue in the case. Once that is awarded, this case is closed.”
Commissioner Maez then asked is there were any additional public comments.
‘Liberty Zone’ plaintiff Greg Giehl stepped up to the podium, to offer an alternative perspective on “what has transpired over the last six years. It was six years ago, we began exercising our rights under the Constitution, to petition the government by initiative. And [Mr. Weaver has explained] part of what has gone on.
“But when the Supreme Court refused to hear this case — this question has gone before them a couple of other times, and they’ve refused to hear it — we got a hold of [Mr. Weaver] and got instructions where to take the payments, and we made payment. And we documented that the County received those payments. Before everyone even had the opportunity to make all their payments, Mr. Weaver decided that wasn’t the thing to do, and refunded them.
“There is a criminal complaint that’s been delivered to the District Attorney, and that’s really where the case sits. Fraud on the Court was committed by Mr. Starr; it’s all documented… the Court received the evidence on April 12, 2017, and no one has ruled on the evidence that’s before the Court.”
At this point, the DA has not brought any criminal action resulting from the documents he’s received.
Commission chair Ronnie Maez engaged in a brief exchange with Mr. Giehl about the fact that the ‘Liberty Zone’ plaintiffs had not revealed, prior to submitting payments, that a letter ‘excusing’ them from additional payments would accompany the checks.
Mr. Giehl addressed Commissioner Maez.
“My understanding, as far as what’s taking place here now… there’s an adversarial spirit, or atmosphere, that’s being created either by you or by… because you are the chairman of the Board, and Mr. Weaver works for you. He’s either doing it at your direction, or he’s doing it on his own.
“We tried to make payment. We actually began making payment.
“Mr. Weaver has filed a document with the Court, under Rule 69, which makes the plaintiffs in this case into debtors. By filing those documents, he’s turned this into a commercial case. Because all these court documents turn us into debtors instead of injured parties — whose rights have been violated… under the Uniform Commercial Code, this is now debtor-creditor proceedings, so we attached the Uniform Commercial Code 3-603 stipulation to our payments.
“That’s where we’re at now. If you don’t want payment.”
Commissioner Maez: “Maybe when the stars align, we’ll get past this.”
As was mentioned in Part Five, I once tried my hand at taking the Archuleta Board of County Commissioners to court for what I considered a violation of Colorado law — in particular, the Colorado Open Meetings Law. That was a learning experience — for me, and for the BOCC and for their attorney, Todd Starr.
As often happens in a lawsuit, the Court never addressed the central question — “Did the BOCC hold an illegal closed-door meeting?” — because my lawsuit was dismissed on a technicality. But the Colorado Supreme Court later investigated attorney Starr’s behavior during the case and sent a letter to my attorney, Matt Roane, summarizing the court’s findings. (You can download that letter here).
The letter to Mr. Roane read, in part:
After reviewing your information and Mr. Starr’s response, we concluded that an alternative to discipline pursuant to CRCP 251.13 was appropriate to resolve this matter. This office has now entered into a confidential agreement with Mr. Starr that requires him to complete a specific ethics-related course. If Mr. Starr adheres to the terms and conditions of the agreement, this matter will be closed and dismissed. If he fails to do so, our office may take further action pursuant to the Colorado Rules of Procedure Regarding Attorney Discipline and Disability Proceedings.
Thank you for your cooperation and your willingness to bring this matter to our attention. Your involvement in the attorney disciplinary process is a vital part of the Colorado Supreme Court’s effort to ensure that attorneys comply with the Rules of Professional Conduct.
We may never know exactly what “specific ethics-related course” Mr. Starr was required to complete because, as stated in the letter, the agreement was “confidential.”
When members of the Bar Association are disciplined by our court system, for unethical behavior, the process often takes place behind closed doors.
When volunteer activists are disciplined by our court system, for trying to assert what they believe to be their Constitutional rights, the story often ends up on the front page, recounting thousands of dollars in awarded fees.
Bill Hudson began sharing his opinions in the Pagosa Daily Post in 2004 and can’t seem to break the habit. He claims that, in Pagosa Springs, opinions are like pickup trucks: everybody has one.