Category Archives: Prosecutorial Misconduct

Colorado Female Basketball Coach Faces Felony Charges For Sex With 17-1/2 Year Old Male “Child” – Basalt High Teacher Lauren Redfern Charged by Eagle DA Mark Hurlbert

Basalt High's Lauren Redfern Coaching Her Girls Basketball Team - Aspen Times

In a bizarre story of legislative ineptitude, sure to invoke the ire of Fox’s Bill O’Reilly for all the wrong reasons, Eagle County District Attorney Mark Hurlbert has charged the hot, athletic, 25-year old Lauren Redfern with several acts of consensual sex with a male “child” who was also a student at Colorado’s Basalt High where Ms. Redfern taught him a P.E. class.  I kid you not, Ms. Redfern faces 16 long years in prison for this joke of a charge that at most should be a misdemeanor.

The Aspen Dailey News shares some details, as does the Aspen Times.  The Swift-owned Times explains the “nuances” of Colorado laws on young adults having sex with relatively old minors:

Colorado law has some nuances when it comes to sexual relations between people in their late teens and adults. An 18-year-old can have a consensual sexual relationship with an older adult, even a teacher, without a crime being committed, McWilliam said. That would violate policies of most schools, but it isn’t a crime because an 18-year-old is considered an adult.

A 17-year-old can have sexual relations with an adult of any age as long as it’s not a person in a position of trust — such as a teacher, according to McWilliam.

Sorry, but the hot adults a late teen is likely to meet are these “people of trust.”  Late teens generally can’t go to bars and meet untrustworthy adults there.  (I’ll be blogging later about how head District Attorneys in positions of trust are rewarded instead of punished for far worse sexual transgressions in Colorado’s 18th Judicial District as we follow the re-election bid of DA Elizabeth Oldham (RINO – Grand County).  Here’s a couple blog posts of mine from 2010 about DA Oldham and her transgressions.)

Back to the hot action at Basalt High.  How were these sexual encounters discovered?  Apparently the gossip mill was running at full-tilt in Basalt and school officials discovered the relationship while collecting their union paychecks.

Man-child “X”, the alleged victim,  is now 18, and did not seek to have charges pressed, nor did his family.  But according to nanny-state enabler Eagle County Undersheriff Mike McWilliam, this doesn’t matter one little bit.  “It’s really not in their hands,” McWilliam said of alleged victims in these heinous cases.  These are cases where we, “The People of the State of Colorado” are the aggrieved party.

Meanwhile, plenty of real dangerous criminals run free in Colorado and even down here in Los Cabos, Mexico, where real victims want real charges filed.  But they aren’t.

ExPat ExLawyer herself is one such victim here in Mexico.  Right now, I’m blogging from the left – not politically speaking -no, never.  Literally speaking.  My right arm was shattered in an unprovoked attack and I just had surgery involving six screws and one titanium plate.  The assailant meanwhile is still running around loose.  I’ll be blogging about my experience with the Mexican criminal justice system soon.

Ritter Would Pick Replacements Of Any Judges Voted Out In November Election

As confirmed to me by the judicial branch almost three months ago, current Colorado Democratic governor Bill Ritter would name any replacements of judges not retained in Tuesday’s election.  (See, Article VI, Section 20 of the state constitution).  Now that Lawweek ran a story on it today, I finally felt comfortable blogging on it, as so many Republicans told me otherwise despite my having done a thorough email cross-examination of Judicial Branch Public Information Officer, Rob McCallum.

Here’s his reply to my intense questioning back on August 5:

All judges standing for retention are in the midst of a term that expires on Jan. 11, 2011.  If a judge is not retained and sits through the end of the term (which is historically the case) the nominating commission will convene following the November election and go through the process to send nominees to the Governor who will then appoint the new judge to the bench beginning on, or after, Jan 11, 2011.

If a judge is not retained by the voters and decides to immediately resign (to my knowledge this has never happened) then the nominating commission would begin its process and would have names to the Governor within 30 days of the judges departure.  The Governor would then make the appointment.

In both scenarios it would be Governor Ritter’s appointment.  [Ed:  Ritter's term similarly expires on January 11, 2011]

So much for the debate on the importance of the next governor for the current judiciary, right?.   Or is it?  Sure Ritter is going to appoint some legal losers.  He was a terrible DA and loves other terrible DAs for trial court judgeships (but so did Republican Bill Owens), and of course he will try to appoint Dems or legal establishment insiders who might as well be Dems to the Colorado Supreme Court.  But voting the bums out now  means the replacements only get a provisional two-year term, and are up for retention again then.

As  Clear the Bench Colorado Director Matt Arnold frequently pointed out when it looked like Hickenlooper was a sure bet, the judicial branch ain’t easy to change, and it’s best to take it one step at a time.  After all, it’s better to get these legal losers out now (Justices Martinez, Bender and Rice ) and have a go at the replacement in two instead of the devils-we-know in 10 years.

And while we’re at it, look carefully at your own judges.  If you look at the performance reviews read between the lines, don’t just look at the recommendation or the summary – over 99 percent receive “RETAIN” recommendations.   Under the guise of operating a merit system, the Commission on Judicial Performance operates more like the teachers unions – they get a 99 percent “retain” too.  So if your local judges sound sketchy in the least, there’s a good chance they’re legal losers too.

We need a reform that grades on a curve.  If it’s really about merit, then let’s reform the law to require the Commission give no-retain recommendations to say the bottom 10 percent.  This will force the judges out of the world of communist-like equality into a world of at least modest competition .  Besides, if the locals love their legal losers so much they are free to vote to retain those bottom-ranked judges.

We also need to make the entire evaluation process more open and transparent. We need a lot of reform, and I’ll go into more about the specifics after the election, but contrary to the straw man arguments brought up by the legal establishment, this reform can easily come within Colorado’s so-called Missouri System of appointment and retention.  No one involved in the forefront of the reform movement is advocating straight elections.

Meanwhile, vote down the three Supreme Court justices on the ballot, and urge everyone you know in Larimer County to vote out corrupt, evidence manufacturing district court judges Jolene Blair and Terry Gilmore.  Since January, I’ve been all over this pair of legal refuse that caused an innocent man, Tim Masters,  to sit in prison for murder for 10 years  because of exonerating evidence they withheld,  for which they were disciplined, and for which the county and city paid out a total of $10 million to Masters.  I’m thrilled  that it looks like the voters will spit on the “RETAIN” recommendations cynically handed out by the Commission on Judicial Performance.

Black Panther Voter Intimidation Prosecutor Resigns Justice Dept.: Failure to Prosecute Part of Pattern Of Obama Hostility Towards Racial Neutrality in Civil Rights

A top-level, career prosecutor with the U.S. Department of Justice, J. Christian Adams,  has resigned his post in protest against alleged racially biased enforcement of federal voting rights laws under Obama Attorney General, Eric Holder.  The final straw was “untruthful”  testimony given by an Obama political appointee about the merits of the New Black Panther voter intimidation case in Pennsylvania.

Adams summarized the case that he and other lawyers won in court, but which Holder didn’t want to follow through to a final judgment:

On Election Day 2008, armed men wearing the uniforms and jackboots of the New Black Panther Party were posted in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, at the entrance to a polling site. They brandished a weapon and intimidated voters. After the election, the Civil Rights Division at the U.S. Department of Justice brought a voter intimidation case against the New Black Panther Party and these armed thugs. I, and other Justice lawyers, obtained an entry of default after the defendants ignored the case against them.

Here’s the video of the incident:

Adams continues, with this legal assessment:

Before a final judgment could be entered, however, our superiors ordered dismissal of the claims.

Congress has sought answers from the Department about why the Black Panther case was dismissed. The Department has repeatedly claimed the “facts and law” did not support the case — which of course is false. Others have speculated about a White House involvement. But I believe the best explanation for the corrupt dismissal of the case is the profound hostility by the Obama Civil Rights Division in the Justice Department towards a race-neutral enforcement of civil rights laws.

This hostility was — and is — on open display within the Department of Justice.

Example after example exists where this dirty little secret manifested itself within the Department and affected Department policy.

Attorney General Holder and his political appointees have traveled the country claiming that they have “reopened” the Civil Rights Division. The Civil Rights Division is “back in business,” they announce, without a sniff of media scrutiny. In time, statistics and other information will present truth to this lie, as the Bush Civil Rights Division had a more robust civil rights agenda than the Obama Civil Rights Division. During the Bush years, the Civil Rights Division brought more cases in many areas of the law, particularly voting rights.

The case has been stirring interest in the conservative blogosphere since making news in Philly in November 2008, but has only just been picked up by traditional media.  Fox is now headlining the story.

Back in 2008, Philadelphia’s mayor and DA insisted peopled needed to move on, nothing to see here.  These two local politicos, with possible racial motivations of their own, claimed these thugs had every right to be where they were, minding their own business – obviously the same forced-narrative Holder has tried to popularize.

Adams will now be testifying before Congress, without fear of reprisal from his old boss.

Every prosecutor  claims the “facts and law” do or don’t support a prosecution, depending on whether the prosecutor wants to bring charges. Frequently, these conclusions are based on well-considered legal analysis, but not always.  When the analysis is clearly erroneous or pretextual, prosecutors have a duty to speak out and not participate in the facade. Unfortunately, in the real world, few do.  Christian Adams and his colleagues at Justice are exceptions.

Colorado U.S.  Senate candidate, Ken Buck, is another exception.   Buck, the leading Republican Senate candidate and Weld County district attorney, recently came under fire by his primary opponent for advising defense counsel about the weakness of a case he and other career prosecutors in the U.S. Attorney’ office had declined to file, but their new Democrat boss, Tom Strickland, decided to pursue.   Buck’s school marm of a  Senate opponent, Jane Norton,  is not a lawyer and perhaps failed to understand that Ken Buck’s client was not his politically opportunistic boss, a two-time failed Democrat Senate candidate, most recently known for being hoisted out of the Grand Canyon while on a rafting trip so he could attend to his duties as Ken Salazar’s assistant in the Gulf of Mexico.

Both former federal prosecutors,  Christian Adams and Ken Buck,  demonstrated that the ethical obligation of all prosecutors is to the rule of law and the pursuit of justice, not the pursuit of the agenda of their bosses.

Ken Buck Goes Public on U.S. Atty. Friction with Strickland

Ken Buck, the leading Republican candidate for Colorado’s U.S. Senate race,  just made files available to the public from his years at the U.S. Attorney’s office documenting his concerns about a weak case former U.S. Attorney Tom Strickland wanted to file against some pawn shop owners.  Buck turned materials on the case (that included private personnel records otherwise not subject to disclosure) over to the Denver Post, as reported today by Allison Sherry.

The story starts with a pair of Russian immigrant brothers who ran a gun store and pawnshop in Aurora in the 1990s. Gregory and Leonid Golyansky were friends and contributors to the Republican Party — Buck says he knew Gregory Golyansky at the time from Republican society gatherings. …

Federal investigators went to the gun shop in several undercover sting operations from 1996 through 1998, posing as “straw purchasers.” That means two people would come in together, but only the person paying for the gun would have to pass a background check.

Authorities figured this was how career criminals commonly gained access to weapons.

Agents first presented the investigation to the U.S. attorney’s office in 1998, when Buck was chief of general crimes. At the time, Buck and a prosecutor below him declined to file charges because of weaknesses in the ATF probe, Buck said.

Henry Solano, who was then the U.S. attorney appointed by President Bill Clinton, said the ATF never appealed the decision to him. Solano, a Democrat, served in that post until December 1998.

In his view, declining the case “was an appropriate decision,” Solano said in a recent interview.

But when Tom Strickland was sworn in as U.S. attorney the day after a pair of Columbine High School students killed 12 kids and a teacher before killing themselves in April 1999, one of his first priorities was to mount an offensive against gun violence.

So Buck thought the case was lousy, and so did his Dem boss,  Solano.  Then Strickland comes in with Columbine on his mind, and obviously sees political opportunism beckoning.  This is the same Tom Strickland that now serves as assistant Interior Secretary under Ken Salazar.  This would be the  same Tom Strickland that had to be air-lifted out of a rafting trip on the Grand Canyon on April 20 so he could attend to his duties in the gulf oil spill.

This case is also what has had some Jane Norton supporters all abuzz in the comments sections of the conservative blogosphere, including the People’s Press Collective.  So what is Buck’s non-crime here?  He told an attorney for the defense his opinion that the case was weak.  Strickland thought this violated the attorney client privilege under some tortured interpretation.  I say tortured, because the “client” wasn’t Tom Strickland.  The client is the United States of America, and the duty of a prosecutor is not to prosecute a case as hard as possible just because your boss wants you to do that.  A prosecutor has a duty to seek justice on behalf of the public.

Is this the big smoking gun in Ken Buck’s tenure as head of Criminal Prosecutions at the U.S. Attorney’s office that we’ve heard cryptic allusions to?  Ironically, even Bill Ritter’s big bud, Stephanie Villafuerte, thought this case was a dog.  She wrote a memo about the case that the defense attorneys sought to obtain.  Strickland charged the case as a 37-count felony indictment, but it was plead down to the lowest possible misdemeanor, and one day of probation, for one defendant.  Charges against two other defendants were dropped.

By this time Strickland was busy in his failed U.S. Senate run in 2002.  Suthers was aboard as U.S. Attorney, and based on Strickland’s filing of an internal ethics complaint against Buck, issued a letter of reprimand in late 2001.  This letter would have remained a private, personnel file matter but for the disclosure by Buck (though details surrounding it seem to have been leaked by the Norton campaign, possibly via her endorser, Suthers).  And this internal reprimand was in no way a Bar-discipline of any kind against Buck. Ken Buck has a spotless record with the Colorado Office of Attorney Regulation Counsel.

Buck now admits his disclosures were a mistake, though I think that’s debatable.  We need more prosecutors who take their responsibilities seriously and speak out when the boss is pursuing cases for his own political motives and not the pursuit of justice.  As the recent felony mountain biking prosecutions by fellow Penryite and Suthers endorsement recipient, Mark Hurlbert, illustrates, overcharging by prosecutors is a pernicious form of government overreach.  Buck himself recently spoke to me about his concerns about the “overcriminalization” of society.

My only beef with Buck would be that he received about $700 in reported contributions for his Senate run from the Golyanskys.  While this is technically legal, I think it creates an appearance of impropriety,  and I have argued the same about the $2,000 in contributions Mark Hurlbert received from Ali Hasan and family (whom Hurlbert investigated, but declined to prosecute, in 2008).  Unlike Buck, Hurlbert failed to reveal details of his investigation (thereby preventing the public from making its own decision of the merits of Hurlbert’s conduct).  Still, returning  the $700 contributions would be the high road for Buck to take.

Buck’s stance in the Golyansky prosecution was a brave one, and given two well-known Democrat prosecutors agreed with him, and the one who didn’t was Tom Strickland, speaks volumes.  The Penry-led Norton campaign, as Don Johnson recently pointed out, seems truly desperate.  If this is the big dirt they have on Buck, and given the latest polling numbers, maybe Norton  should just bow out now.

Updated: Dems on the attack in predictable fashion.  Good coverage by The Independent’s John Tomasic.  Read the whole DP piece by Sherry, including the 53 comments after the article.  A lot of people seem to get it about how political prosecutor’s offices work.

Controversial Colo. Supreme Court Chief Justice Mary Mullarkey to Step Down: Retirement May Be Prompted by Clear the Bench Movement

After 23 years sitting on the bench of the  Colorado Supreme Court , Chief Justice Mary Mullarkey, 66, decided “now was the right time to step down and pursue other interests,” according to a press release from the Colorado Judicial Branch.   Chief Juctice Mularkey is one of four justices targeted by Clear the Bench Colorado, for a no-retention vote this November.

The movement stems from votes upholding unconstitutional property tax increases and the so-called dirty dozen tax increases – a result of calling these otherwise TABOR-violating tax increases  “fees” or the elimination of “exemptions.”  Mularkey is targeted along with three other Colorado Supreme Court justices up for retention vote this November.  The other three are Justices Michael Bender, Alex Martinez, and Nancy Rice.

The Supreme Court Nominating Commission later this summer will interview applicants for the upcoming vacancy and nominate three candidates to the governor, who then will appoint a new associate justice.   Members of the court will select a new chief justice.

Unfortunately, the governor doing the appointing will still be career prosecutor, and lame-duck gubernatorial disaster, Democrat Bill Ritter.  ExPat ExLawyer will be reporting in detail on how to best get an appropriate replacement appointed for Justice Mularkey.

The root of the problem in the Colorado judiciary extends well beyond these four justices.  The retention criteria themselves are artificially limited to exclude issues that should be considered before a rubber stamp is given to the voters by the Commission on Judicial Performance. Larimer County District Court judges Jolene Blair and Terry Gilmore committed egregious prosecutorial misconduct in a murder case when they were DAs by withholding and manufacturing evidence.  That misconduct resulted in an undisputably innocent man, Tim Masters,  going to prison for 10 years, the guilty suspect likely going free, and Larimer County paying a $4.1 million dollar judgment to Masters.

Incredibly, because the misconduct was not proved until Gilmore and Blair were already appointed to the bench, the Commission on Judicial Performance deems it irrelevant to their “retention” recommendations.   The misconduct resulted in rare disciplinary action by the Colorado Supreme Court for ethical violations by a prosecutor.  Ironically, these two are free to consider a defendant’s entire life history when pronouncing their judgments.  I will be devoting a major portion of blogging effort to researching and writing about what needs to be done to make Colorado’s judiciary more accountable to the public.

Updated: Chief Justice Mullarkey’s decision now, more than six months before her actual retirement date has the following logic:  All judges up for retention in November must announce in August whether they will stand for retention.  Here’s a question.  If the Chief can wait until November 30, why not hang on a little over a month more and allow the new Governor to make the appointment?

Ali Hasan and DA Mark Hurlbert, Conflict of Interest? Colo. Treasurer and State Senate Candidates Intertwined in 2008 Criminal Investigation; Missing or Sealed Court Records, Lack of Special Prosecutor – Ali Hasan Speaks Out – Updated 4-19

In March 2008, Ali Hasan, currently running as a Republican candidate for Colorado Treasurer, was the subject of a court-issued temporary civil restraining order, which  in turn lead to a

Ali Hasan

criminal investigation of the case by DA Mark Hurlbert, a Republican candidate for state Senate District 16.  The facts of the underlying claims are disputed.  Alison Miller, a former girlfriend of Hasan’s, and an activist Republican and publicist for his 2008 campaign for House District 56, alleged that after a breakup, Hasan harassed her and hacked into her computer.  Hasan disputes this as a smear campaign.

Unfortunately, without assistance from Hasan and Hurlbert, this “he said, she said” dispute can’t really be sorted out because the entire Eagle County court records on the case are inexplicably missing, as if the case never existed.  See Update of 4-19 here.

DA Mark Hurlbert, a friend and political supporter of Hasan’s back in 2008 and continuing today, evaluated the case for possible criminal charges.  He didn’t bring any, he didn’t issue a press release as to why not, and he failed to comment  about why he personally handled the case despite the apparent conflict of interest.  He easily could have and should have handed the case off to a special prosecutor, such as a DA from neighboring Glenwood Springs.

As Don Johnson pointed out, I first raised these concerns in early March. Despite never being charged criminally, the wealthy Republican scion hired members of the Kobe Bryant defense team to represent him.  And there’s nothing wrong with that;  it’s a smart move if you can afford it.  But as Don Johnson noted in following the exchanges with Hasan today over at Ben Degrow’s Mount Virtus blog, undoubtedly Alison Miller didn’t have the resources to fight Hasan given his vast wealth.

Read Michael Riley’s detailed article from the Denver Post in its entirety.  He notes in a heading to a section of the article, Hasan’s “Future may lie with DA.” I spoke with Riley last week, and he confirmed that Mark Hurlbert had indeed been investigating the case,  and he spoke at length with Hurlbert. Ali Hasan and I engaged in a form of blog comment/interview at Ben Degrow’s Mount Virtus site over the past two days.  Don Johnson reported on the exchange and agreed Ali Hasan was being cagey when he said he “didn’t know” whether DA Hurlbert had investigated him.  Based on the Post article, Hasan’s mother certainly seemed to know.

The purpose of this investigative post is not to judge whether “he” or “she” is correct in his or her different versions of events.  Instead, my aim is to explore the transparency and ethics questions posed by the case, a major theme of this blog.

I spoke with two different court clerks to verify how no record whatsoever could exist of proceedings that both “he and she” admitted took place.  Both clerks told me it’s as if the restraining order action had never even been filed, though both Hasan and Miller agree that it had.  I asked both clerks if it had it been sealed.  No, it hadn’t.  It’s just not there.  “Ellie” at Eagle County, and Summit Combined Courts head clerk, Jan Reed, who has access to all Fifth Judicial District Records, confirmed today exactly what Ellie told me on April 8:  It’s not there.  And it’s not sealed.  And despite Hasan’s unsupported claims in our blog exchange, such secrecy  is not in the least normal in the American legal system.

Ali Hasan is exuberantly outspoken as usual about his friendship and the campaign help Hurlbert provided him during his 2008 campaign.  Hasan made these points in the comments section  in February on Ben Degrow’s blog post endorsing Hurlbert’s opponent for Senate District 16, conservative Evergreen businessman, Tim Leonard.  Hasan commented that a post of mine, opining Hurlbert is a RINO, made him “sick to his stomach.”  Hasan continued:

I ran for House District 56 as a Republican in 2008, with almost everyone in the world giving no chance of winning – I ended up with 47% of the vote (outpacing McCain and Schaffer by around an 11% average), almost unseating a Democratic incumbent Mark Hurlbert was a big reason behind this because he helped me tremendously in my getting to know Summit and Lake Counties…

Now, with his case resolved and Hurlbert declining to file charges, flash forward to the August 2009 Lincoln Day event in Beaver Creek, Colorado, and the comments Hasan made there.  Here’s the raw video:

At about the 2:38 mark, Ali Hasan shouts out this hyperbolic praise for Hurlbert:  “Mark, you’re the greatest DA in the world!” Hurlbert smiles, and says, “thanks Ali.”  Then Ali used the opportunity to get Hurlbert to promote his (ultimately failed) campaign to extend his term limits from two, to three four-year terms. The conflict of interest topic came up last night and today, once again on Ben Degrow’s blog, which seems to be serving as a modern-day political salon.  Hasan backed off from his August comments about Hurlbert, and now only views him as the “greatest DA in the U.S.”  Here’s some more excerpts from my exchanges with Hasan:

There was a false restraining order requested against me around February of 2008 – this request was made in Eagle County Courts, outside the jurisdiction of the DA’s office In March of 2008, after I had hired a lawyer, the request was withdrawn and shortly after, completely vacated by a Judge in Eagle County, as it was found to be baseless I personally no longer have the original request – in regards to Eagle County no longer having the request on file, that is likely because a Judge in Eagle County vacated it – which had nothing to do with the DA’s office.  I was innocent of all accusations and I’m glad that the Eagle County Courts agreed – again, a Judge in Eagle County vacated the Order, not Mark Hurlbert – so if you’re upset that it was vacated, then you would have to speak with the Judge in Eagle County.

It’s hard to know where to begin with this.  First, the temporary restraining order was apparently granted by a judge, and Hasan offers no evidence it was “false.”  With a strangely eradicated court file that indicates none of the court hearings that obviously took place ever did, it’s hard to judge the rest of his argument.  That’s why we have open court proceedings in the U.S., where the media and public can obtain transcripts to find out what really took place.

And though I have no concerns at all about the TRO being vacated, it would be helpful if Hasan would indicate who the judge was who did the alleged vacating.   One thing is clear –  if complaining witness Alison Miller withdrew the order, in other words, did not pursue a permanent restraining order, the judge would never reach the issue of innocence or guilt, and vacating the original restraining order would have been a bureaucratic function at most.

Thus, it appears Ali Hasan is being inaccurate in stating he received some form of acquittal on the merits.  He didn’t.  If I’m wrong, this candidate wishing to manage all of Colorado’s money can supply the transcript.

But Hasan was unwilling even to supply the court case number.  Given the inexplicably missing record, I thought this would give me a third shot at finding any record that the proceedings ever occurred.  He tried to cop-out that he didn’t have it on him, and I pointed out (as if I needed to) that he could ask his high-priced attorneys and they would readily supply it.  He demurred, stating he’s put all this behind him.  He fails to realize as a candidate for Treasurer, it’s not all about him.

Both Hurlbert and Hasan need to release all records to the public concerning these  public proceedings voluntarily.  Mark Hurlbert also needs to explain why he failed to appoint a special prosecutor.  Though I believe this would be only a half-measure, why did Hurlbert handle what Hasan maintains is such a bogus case himself, instead of assigning it to a deputy DA? Hurlbert also needs to use his powers as DA to help restore the court file, and find out how it got cleansed from public existence.

Elizabeth Oldham, Steamboat Spring DA, Ethics Violations Article Updated

DA Elizabeth’s Oldham’s ethics violations were the subject of one of my first blog posts.

Elizabeth Oldham: 14th District DA and Former Mark Hurlbert Chief Deputy (Steamboat Pilot & Today Photo)

Recently, my source link interview article about these ethics violations was removed from the Internet by the author, based on local pressure in Steamboat Springs, Colorado.

When I discovered this, and all the views the article was garnering recently, I became concerned that readers would become confused or think I wasn’t backing up the story.  The author, Tom Reuter, kindly provided me a pdf of the original article which is embedded in the updated post here.

Also, since the initial publication, I conducted original research and have greatly expanded the article.  I also removed some names to protect innocent victims.

Update: Steamboat publisher and editor, Tom Reuter, has reviewed this post and the updated article and confirms their accuracy.