[update 24 Feb - shortened the title - used to say "And Another Interesting Answer to the Interesting Answer to the Interesting Answer"]
When we last left this saga, the District had declared “governmental immunity” — they can take you to court, and if you lose, you will pay their court costs.
If you WIN, however, they won’t pay you anything — they will quickly stipulate under state law they don’t have to (see this post and this document).
So, the twist — Since Larry Bishop filed the restraining orders as an individual person, he can be held liable for costs:
4. Indeed, it is plain from the testimony at trial that, although Mr. Bishop was (and is) an employee of Woodmen Hills Metropolitan District, he was the moving force behind the filing of the Complaint in the matter, and that he acted on his own behalf as well as on behalf of the District in filing the Complaint. (source: This document)
Seems pretty clear, right? The court thought so, and ordered Larry Bishop to pay defendant’s costs (see this document).
Case closed?
…Not quite. The district paid…meaning you and I paid again:
Source: Richard Daily, LLC
If they were going to pay anyway, why did they engage The Lawyer™ (at whatever-hundreds-of-dollars-an-hour THAT cost [hint: $400/hour for the main guy, less for the minor entities]) to say they won’t?
And the bigger question: Is this a legal use of district funds?
Oh….My….God….
I will keep this brief;
You may not know this but the District has indemnified Larry Bishop for any and all future actions as a result of this case.
This means that long after he retires, you may very well be burdened with the aftermath of your present manager.
Now I don’t speak for anyone other than me but I can tell you this; There was no investigation done by the Manager prior to moving forward. You seem to apply the “fact” label to Hightower, I and the rest of the so called misinformed.
But when it comes to the District It must be “true”. Theres no way they would spend all the resources on a mistake?!?
“for any and all future actions as a result of this case”
So I take it this is you stating that you are not done with this action? I am not worried with being “burdened with the aftermath of your present manager”, I am worried about being burdened by your future actions.
“Now I don’t speak for anyone other than me”
Wow when did that change? I thought you were the voice for a community that cannot or will not speak up for their rights?
“Theres no way they would spend all the resources on a mistake?!?”
A logical person would conclude that, oh wait, the district decided to do all of this work, get a restraining order, go to court, just to make you look bad, yea you are probably correct, and in your world I guess we didn’t land a man on the moon either. you could have stopped this entire action from day one but never offered the olive branch.
Here is a suggestion, wake up, grow up, and go to the district offices, apologize to everyone that works there, shake their hands, and tell them that you are dropping the lawsuit and any other actions. Then tell them and the community that you intend to continue to investigate things that bother you in a mature, responsible, adult manner without raising your voice in public to as not to bring discredit to yourself or your cause.
Well, I think that is how adults play at least that is how I was taught.
To mmteik
I cant stop laughing. OMG
You really bought into this District white night deal.
I cant stop laughing.
I have a hearing issue. Are you making fun of that as well?
This is too easy.
Yes they did and you paid for it try reading the transcript.
Is that after I go to trial on the criminal charge for bike searching, with Danny Everette
oh my side hurts.
I havent laughed this hard in a while.
Actually, I think you meant to write “White Knight”, but yea since you asked, I believe a decorated retired veteran, his more than competent staff and the board members more then you.
Yea, pull the ol’ I’m a handicapped vet routine, no Ron I am not making fun of your hearing problem or any other issue you might have, I have problems of my own that probably rate higher than yours on the VA rating scale.
Yes they did and you paid for it try reading the transcript.
- I did read the transcript several times, legally you won, but that doesn’t mean you are not guilty of anything, it means that the district didn’t have a preponderance of the evidence, that does not mean they weren’t justified in pursuing the issue. The judge had many things to say about you and your attitude also. Personally, I think the judgment language indicates that the judge leans toward the liberal side.
Is that after I go to trial on the criminal charge for bike searching, with Danny Everette
- You had ample time to ask any questions you had about the RO, in addition, you seem to be an expert in searching the web so I assume you probably already knew the addresses for the protected people on the RO. Why couldn’t you look them up just as easily as you have looked and posted addresses for people on the covenent board?
- I don’t your arrest as an issue that involves the district at all, if you feel your rights were violated then sue the El Paso County Sheriff, the city of Colorado Springs, or whoever put you in jail. The district did not issue the RO, a competent judge from the same system that found in your favor in your case against the district did.
- Why do you feel that the system is great when it works in your favor, but the same system sucks when it allowed the RO to be issued in the first place and you were arrested for violating that RO?
Can’t have it both ways.
I havent stopped laughing at your earlier posting to my comments.
I wont be responding to your district sided attacks.
You clearly have issues with who you are and since you cant tell us your real name.
I will not be responding to your posting.
You might try a posting on Lynns site. She has all the negitivity you need.
Dont forget to come to the meet and greet I am holding.
Should be real fun. But then again…
I will be giving the judge your comments tommorrow. Think she will enjoy it.
Can someone just muzzle Ron?
dave, why do you ask if this is legal? wasn’t this action done on behalf of the district?
Hi, ummm….whole lotta
My question goes to the filing status of the restraining orders. If I read the request from Mr. Daily correctly, Larry Bishop filed as a “person” and not as district manager of WHMD. Since is a named person, therefore the costs can be assessed against him.
That’s where it gets muddy for me–was this a pro se filing, with The Lawyer representing the district and Larry representing himself? If not, then why did the orders not read “Woodmen Hills Metropolitan District vs Ronald Pace”? I’ll have to ask my attorney.
If indeed he was not acting on behalf of the district (as Mr. Daily’s filing indicates, and the magistrate apparently concurred with), then this was district funds used to settle a private debt.
A further question: I was at the previous two board meetings, and this wasn’t discussed and voted on by the board at either meeting–so when exactly did they approve this expenditure….and what budget line item was it listed against?
Yawn,
Typical,
“You clearly have issues with who you are and since you cant tell us your real name.”
- Yep, another useless attack against my person. Perhaps by not stating my name I don’t have to worry about you doing a background check on me, posting my address and map on the internet, or using my name in a newspaper article or any of the other things you have done in the past. I am exercising my right to free speech on this internet sight just as you are.
“I wont be responding to your district sided attacks.”
- Wow, I thought they were just comments, you have comments, but when I have comments all of mine are considered attacks?
“I will be giving the judge your comments tomorrow. Think she will enjoy it.”
- Fine with me, I am exercising my first amendment rights same as you are.
Interesting perspective. I didn’t get the impression from the magistrate at the hearing that Larry was acting on his own behalf. She did say that she recognized that he had his employees interests in mind. That would preclude his acting alone. However, if he personally felt threatened, then that would be a personal issue. But I didn’t sense that he had filed for a restraining order on his own behalf. I would think that, since both names are together on the complaint, he would acting on behalf of the district. Just my perception with no basis in a legal capacity.
I’m not sure I follow your statement “and the magistrate concurred with.” Is that referring to her determination that Larry should personally pay for certain expenses?
This is one of those murky areas, isn’t it?
When Larry Bishop made his 911 call (click here to listen), he stated “I really do feel (or fear) for my physical well-being” and “I am really starting to fear for my own safety now” and when asked if Ron’s issue is toward the district, he says “no, it’s towards me…personal”. At no point does he state concern for the district employees–it’s all about his fear for himself. Therefore, I would assert that he was seeking protection as an individual person, not for the district.
Later, in Daniel S. Everett’s testimony, we hear that only after the fact are district employees “polled” if they want to be included. Not “have you been threatened?” — just if they want to be included.
Hence, Larry Bishop, by his own words, brought this action as an individual person…and I believe that is why the magistrate awarded costs against him as a “private entity”. You’d have to ask her, of course.
I would further assert: The district claimed sovereign immunity, thus they do not have to pay — if that’s not a sweetheart deal, I don’t know what is. Regardless, the magistrate obviously concurred.
It seems to me that this is a paradox, one that is begging for judicial attention — the district claims sovereign immunity, then in effect waives that sovereign immunity.
In most court cases, both the individual and the entity will show on documents. Most Lawyers do this to make sure the right individual is responding with assigned legal capacity.
Ron, again I think you might be wasting your time running. Yes I know, it’s your legal right. But the majority of people will not appreciate your style. The Judge clearly felt your communication skills were lacking. But encouraged you to keep involved. I think you should read between the lines. Oh yes, you have my permission to show her this blog. I think she was telling you, listen dude, they didn’t treat you right, and because they went over the top, I’m going to give you a break. (lol your nick)
Now, Mr. Pace, stop trying to push buttons and keep asking questions, but do it in a way that will encourage your input. I think your past performance and postings speak for themselves. It makes people uncomfortable.
So is there an official meet the candidates night? Anyone?
Hey Dave,
You should just make a chatroom just for Ron Pace’s stuff.
From his website http://www.savewoodmenhills.com
“I have been tracking the comments by negitive residents
Here is the totals 7 so far.
Now according the these 7 people They are predicting the ruin of woodmenhills.
They are already blaming me for it.
I think Mr. Jarmon said it best “they don’t speak for me or anyone else”
“Whole Lotta Hoppla”
“Avg Joe”
“April”
“Falcon1″
“mmteik”
“jamesar1″
“Falconite”
“These people want to vent and its their right.
To all those naysayers Dr. Phil has a hotline for all your issues ”
- Ron, any day, anytime, anywhere in the U.S. you want to meet one on one with Dr Phil I will gladly fly out with you and have him professionally evaulate you vs me.
“3 new employees 120,000.00 approx”
- You get the quality of people you pay for, if you want to hire someone with no formal schooling, certification, or high school diploma, then go to the Pikes Peak work force center and hire somonee for $6.50 an hour without benifits and you will get what you pay for. This is business education 101.
“Benifits additonal 25,000 appox”
- If you reward your hard workers you will increase their loyalty and they will continue to excel and save you money in the end. This has been proven in business time and time again.
“Trucks 90,000.00 approx”
- When maintenace expenses and breakdowns exceed a new trucks monthly costs and tax writeoffs it is time to replace your equipment. Also, as a business you can also depreciate vehicles over a certain amount of years and still get money for them when you sell them. Why don’t you provide all of this information on your site?
Ron, how old is the vehicle you drive, are you going to keep your truck until you die? If not, by your logic you must be waisting money yourself becuase you will buy a new vehicle instead of keeping your current one forever. This is the same logic your try to use about the vacuum truck yet we have saved money by leasing the truck and make money with it by renting it out.
“Lawyers fees over the previous year 240,000 approx”
- And how much of this cost was directly related to you and your actions?
I would like to correct Beach on the RO matter;
The court made a mistake and it wasn’t until after we got to trial that we discovered the mistake.
The judge was aware and let if fly.
My communications skills were not on trial Beach. but thanks for the 411. Oh I am a freshmen at CTU.
question to Beach have you ever been served 17 RO’s?
Better yet have you gotten taken to court by Larry and Co.?
I bet you didn’t know about the other RO case. That one was dismissed as well. its on my site
I was accused of being a #$%$#^^%$$ in that one but you never heard about that one did ya.
I am sponsoring the Meet and Greet dates and times to be posted.
Ahhh….lying by omission again, Ron. Would you like to tell folks about the permanent restraining order against you that is still in force in Virginia?
Mr Pace,
Your entire case against the district seems to revolve around your perceived injustice at getting a restraining order issued against you.
I have several questions that perhaps you can answer.
It seems to me that by your actions, weather you see them as wrong or right,made the protection order happen. The order was issued on May 8, 2009. You had every opportunity to speak to the court and have the restraining order dismissed on May 19, 2009 but failed to show up in court with or without your lawyer to protest the order. Since you failed to take action to dismiss the restraining order in a timely manner it seems to me that you then stand to take whatever comes from your lack of action.
If you felt you were so wronged at the time, then why did you just not go down to the courthouse and talk to the judge? If the court decided in your favor then this entire action would have cost you 11 days of your life.
Instead, you seemed to force the district’s hand and forced them to spend a large sum of money to complete this case.
Now you continue to threaten the district about a civil suit because you claim a mulitude of wrongs were done to you and multiple rights were taken from you because of the RO when you were the one that failed to defend yourself on May 19th.
Since you are running for the board I would appreciate your side of the story and our answers to these questions:
Are you currently planning, or do you plan in the future, to take further legal actions against the district or any other person.
Do you currenly have a civil case filed or do you plan on filing a civil case against the district or any other person?
According to the information in your motion to dismiss:
Factual Background – the Filing of the Complaint for Civil Protection Order
4. On May 8, 2009 the Administrator of the Woodmen Hills Metropolitan District,Larry Bishop filed a Verified Complaint/Motion for Civil Protection Order against Ron Pace, a citizen-resident of the Woodmen Hills Metropolitan District, who resides at 120 Rio Secco, in Peyton, Colorado. Magistrate Trujillo issued a Temporary Civil Protection Order, ex parte.
5 On May 14, 2009 Geoff Lindquist, one of the attorneys for Larry Bishop and the Woodmen Hills Metropolitan District, sent an email to Ron Pace in which he stated “[w]e will not object to a one-time continuance as long as the temporary restraining orders are kept in place. Please advise if you intend on seeking a continuance. If we do not hear from you, we will assume you are still seeking a continuance.” A copy of this email is attached as Exhibit 1.
6. Mr. Lindquist and Mr. Pace spoke over the telephone. Mr. Pace identified
Richard W. Daily (“Daily”), a Denver lawyer, as his attorney, and asked Mr. Lindquist to contact Mr. Daily directly.
7. Later on May 14, 2009, Mr. Lindquist called Mr. Daily. The two discussed Mr. Daily?s need for a continuance of the hearing. Mr. Daily asked Mr. Lindquist whether Plaintiffs would oppose such a motion. Mr. Lindquist responded that Plaintiffs/Petitioners had no objection to such a motion. Mr. Daily assured Mr. Lindquist that Mr. Pace would stipulate to the continuation in effect of the Temporary Civil Protection Order.
8. On May 15, 2009 Mr. Daily entered his appearance for Mr. Pace in this Court, and filed an Unopposed Motion to Continue Hearing stating that he had not had time to interview witnesses or otherwise prepare for a hearing to oppose the allegations set forth in the Verified Complaint/Motion for Civil Protection Order.
9. Having entered an appearance just five days before, obtained the assent of opposing counsel, and filed the Unopposed Motion to Continue Hearing with the court, neither Mr. Pace nor Mr. Daily appeared at the May 19, 2009 hearing. Mr. Pace relied on Mr. Daily’s advice; Mr. Daily assumed, mistakenly, that the hearing could be continued without the appearance of the Defendant or his attorney, in light of the stipulation of the parties to a continuance, and the continued pendency of the Temporary Civil Protection Order to which he had agreed on Mr. Pace?s behalf.
10. At about 9:15 a.m. on May 19, 2009, Mr. Daily learned that a permanent Civil Protection Order (the “Permanent Order”) had been entered, contrary to his expectation and his agreement with Mr. Lindquist. He called the Court to register his objection. He then tried to reach Mr. Lindquist, and ended up speaking with Mr. Susemihl, a senior partner of Mr. Lindquist?s law firm, Susemihl, McDermott & Cowan, PC. Mr. Daily asked Mr. Susemihl to
consent to the entry of an order setting aside the Permanent Order. Later that day, he received a letter from Jason Downie, Esq. of the Susemihl firm refusing to consent to such an order.
To all reading this:
I am trying to get people who want real questions answered.
I can not answer any RO questions.
I can however tell you this Mr. Lindquist had a compliant filed against him for his actions on the case.
Read the documents.
I fought back and you got stuck paying for it. Sorry, I didn’t file the orders.
Now to MMTEIK I will not answer any question that is not election related and the RO’s are not an election issue.
Read my list of promises.
I will answer all that I can at the meet and greet.
I have real questions but you refuse to answer them. You hide behind a wall of obscurity and half truths and twists words to fit your needs.
You answer what you want and what makes you look good. You fail to take any responsibility at all about what happened to you and blame everything on the district. Haven’t you ever heard of the adage “it takes two to tango”?
You fail to be open and disclose your true motives to the people that you want to vote for you.
How do you think this works, you state some great stuff that makes you look good, but you are immune to any form of questioning about your attitude, background, or character, but you want to run on the board and have partial control of the district?
Do you really think this is how the American political system works? The people you are asking to vote for you deserve to be fully informed of your qualifications (or lack thereof) and background that either qualifies or disqualifies you from a public office.
If you refuse to answer questions and ensure the voters know the truth about you and that you are honest, straight forward, and only have the best interest of the district in mind, then you should not be a candidate for election.
Did you no watch the last Presidential election? Do you not know how this works? Voters in this district deserve to know the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. Until you keep hiding it nobody should vote for you.
Or are you just going to keep telling people that post valid questions abou their candidates that:
“You really bought into this District white night deal.”
“I wont be responding to your district sided attacks.”
“You clearly have issues with who you are and since you cant tell us your real name.”
“To all those naysayers Dr. Phil has a hotline for all your issues”
As far as your statement “I can however tell you this Mr. Lindquist had a compliant filed against him for his actions on the case.”
- This is another example of you stating a fact that makes you look good, but failing to state all of the facts in the case.
- Your lawyer with 38 years experience failed to take proper action, by his
own admissions, “Mr. Daily assumed, erroneously, that Plaintiffs? counsel would, as a courtesy, represent to the Court the parties? agreement to continue rather than seek an entry of default against Mr. Pace. Daily’s mistaken assumption was based upon his own conduct with opposing counsel, during his 38 year legal career.” made a mistake and cost you a lot of heartache. So your lawyer might be upset and he filed a complaint, but it was his actions that caused the problem in the first place. If you were so right in your actions in this case all you had to do was show up in court and state your case and everything would have ended that day.
What kind of questions do you expect to be asked at your meet and greet anyway, If I come I will be asking the same ones in front of your public audience just like I am now, or is your meet and greet going to be by invitation only so you don’t get asked the hard questions?