Woodmen Hills tries to shield Green and his companies again don’t take my word for it go to EMMA and get the facts on the history off the bonds as they paint a very clear picture of where the debt came to be. The multi million dollar question is, who got the 6.4 million dollars paid out (funding group) and who got the 16 million disbursements in bonding money? Well the trustees will never tell as the law says they do not have to divulge it.

Wanna know why they used trusts for the refinancing, cause they knew the people behind it would never be exposed to the public by law.

http://emma.msrb.org/

The law protects those companies, individuals and others who get our money for a reason.

In time the bonds and lease will be posted on several different sites and I will get them posted.

The district lied about having the debt records as shown. The posted copies show when they got them. They did not post the “Lease Purchase” agreement as they claim it was going to do on the site and as of the date of posting have not.

It was filed with the agencies in the time allotted but the records are not posted in the Woodmen Hills Web site.

Now for the fun part. The letter dated April 15, 2016 by Woodmen Hill to pay for the records says they did have them but in a “specimen” copy. The bond documents below contain pages. Why the double speak? Not sure but it is fun watching these people operate. The bond (documents) alone are 196 pages just for the Bonds and not the “Lease Purchase Agreement” so where is the Lease agreement as claimed would be posted? So by the letter from the CORA department AKA Lisa Peterson one is to believe that the “Lease Agreement” is only approximately 60 pages?

The board and office staff in charge posted the documents to avoid a request to view (inspect) the file in the district office pursuant to Woodmen Hills own CORA passed in March 26, 2016. I will post the districts response when I get it in the mail. Your not getting off that easy. It was the reason they posted it in the first place. I knew that requesting to “inspect” files rather then get “copies” in the office would force them to post the files as Peterson does not want me anywhere near her in the office. Your not getting off that easy. The law says the request must be filled as requested as I have questions and the request is the way to get them. That is how CORA works in an open government.

Lets just see if I am right once again. Mr. Green the library meeting sealed for me.

Nice try morons.

Image

13669073_1039363129504263_5031214411861587062_n

 

When an employee thinks their shit don’t stink or their above the law I call them Clintons.

We have our very own Clinton right here in Woodmen Hills. This person has a lawyer and cronies who reward bad behavior and then smile in people faces as to say FU I own you.

Can you guess who this person is?

Law abiding citizens follow the law exception, Woodmen Hills where the law does not apply they have governmental immunity and unlimited liability insurance.

United States Code: Title 18. Section 2071:
(a) Whoever willfully and unlawfully conceals, removes, mutilates, obliterates, or destroys, or attempts to do so, or, with intent to do so takes and carries away any record filed…in any public office, or with any judicial or public officer of the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.
(b) Whoever, having the custody of any such record, unlawfully conceals, removes, mutilates, obliterates, falsifies, or destroys the same, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both; and shall forfeit his office and be disqualified from holding any office under the United States.

CORA on record and no records

As promised I will expose Woodmen Hills thru denials via CORA to hide the disbursements and records of who got monies from the 6.4 million dollars. The CORA attached shows the director who is in charge is Lisa Peterson with the assistance of Lynne Bliss and by and thru the district and attached records show the following;

  1. Requested Security Monitor footage of the foyer while I was there, DENIED
  2. Requested  information on the  group who received 6.4 million and that request was, DENIED.
  3. Requested all letter, and written information about conduct about Mr. Pace, DENIED and DESTROYED. Then a snotty comment on my obtaining records which did not exist then either by the CORA staff.
  4. Requested Tax returns for Woodmen Hills, DENIED
  5. Requested and received the Insurance letter for Balcon Park.

I have stated the district has no records pursuant to the ban placed by the board and as such they will be held accountable. The letter is self admitting as the “letter” in question was not to me by Mrs. White or her firm.

The issues here are two fold and I kept all the interaction recordings and EPSO has the notes as I requested they be kept (don’t bother to get them squashed).

The policy is clear and while one person forgot  EPSO recordings are in my position it establishes the district is in the wrong and no amount of Bill Louis will fix it. The facts are simple and clear, Woodmen Hills will have to produce all records of actions against Mr. Pace by claiming they do not exist does not absolve them of wrong doing. As Mr. Bill knows testimony can be used by prior employees is key to prevailing in any case. Mr. Bill was notified on matters and went silent just after the judge granted our request for a day in court. I left very nice and professional messages for Bill but he stopped communicating almost immediately after I posted the letter from him on matters he was wrong on.

I told everyone that I wanted copies of the bonds and lease and the district has yet to produce a record they have in their position according to the UMB and Davidson and the other firm.

The “assembled” records were signed for in March, 2016 and a letter shows Woodmen Hills has the records only they want Mr. Pace to pay for them instead of posting them on a site for free.

Here are the denials for those wishing to see the collusion and cover up of records that the board knew would not be subject to CORA and protect Greens business ventures from public scrutiny.

The 6.4 million dollar disbursement is not  subject to CORA as the intent of the board and it’s lawyers.

I asked who is in position of the fund and Woodmen Hills says no to my request for information on who, what, where and when.

The denial also requested that the request be forwarded as is CORA to do when another entity has or may have the records and as I did investigate that request fell on deaf ears.

The request also did not mention the “2009” records but the newly refinanced records as shown the CORA officer misinterpreted the request once again and sent the response she wanted. Well I left out some stuff for the meeting.

The “Refinancing  Transaction Fund Account of the 2016 Transaction Fund” is where the 6.4 million went and was sent by DA Davidson.

Note; Security footage for the main office was not turned over as requested as they have security cameras on all the time. The district does in fact have  operational security and lied about the existence of such information in the denial.

Due to the districts records retention policy the Woodmen Hills has now admitted in writing to violating its own policy.

The request for records is a broad based law that is for the ease of access to preventing corrupt governments from acting criminal.

As has been proven the board is a bunch of non convicted people who do not live by any law as shown in simple actions.

Mr. Louis has ignored 9 emails and calls. Shame on him.

On that note in December 23, 2015 the district did not send me any such records as it said they do not exist.

The concealment of records is a crime. I stated earlier the “bonds and lease” are done and in the position of the people who signed for it as the law requires not what the lawyer says.

As claimed by Woodmen Hills records they claimed to have were not produced in the time shown on a few requests.

As noted in the May response by CORA officer the “specimen” copies are in the hands of the District but not posted on the site.

The CORA officer using the 2009 date as a false date for requests which was clearly indicated which records sought. Lynne was present just after the requests were made as noted by the requestor to assist in the response as shown the verbiage is not typical of the prior responses.

I have decided send a copy of all these to every elected official in Colorado to show the names of those involved and how CORA is being applied in this instance. Under the guidance of Mr. Roberts I can establish the interworking’s of the board and its continued actions. Actions do speak louder than words and Mr. Bill actions on behalf of the board speak loud and clear.

 

2 Licence Plates are required at all times and I can report it to EPSO as is my legal right to do so.

During the recent cartel bruhahe I noticed that cars in the local area only displaying one plate are illegally operating a vehicle if the vehicle is registered in Colorado.

I contacted EPSO, the Lt. was friendly and nice to me when I asked if could call in autos who violate the law. The answer is yes and as I found out you have the right to report violators as long as I identify the vehicle and that should be simple as I know my cars.

Here is the law as it is written and anyone who violates it breaking the law.

The law is as cited here.C.R.S. 42-3-202


COLORADO REVISED STATUTES
*** This document reflects changes current through all laws passed at the First Regular Session
of the Seventieth General Assembly of the State of Colorado (2015) ***
TITLE 42. VEHICLES AND TRAFFIC  
TAXATION  
ARTICLE 3.REGISTRATION, TAXATION, AND LICENSE PLATES  
PART 2. LICENSE PLATES
C.R.S. 42-3-202 (2015)
42-3-202. Number plates to be attached



(1) (a) The owner shall attach the number plates assigned to a self-propelled vehicle, other than a motorcycle, auto cycle, or street rod vehicle, to the vehicle with one in the front and the other in the rear. The owner shall attach the number plate assigned to a motorcycle, auto cycle, street rod vehicle, trailer, semitrailer, other vehicle drawn by a motor vehicle, or special mobile machinery to the rear of the vehicle. The owner shall display number plates during the current registration year, except as otherwise provided in this article.

(b) If the department issues a validating tab or sticker to a motor vehicle pursuant to section 42-3-201, the current month validating tab or sticker shall be displayed in the bottom left corner of the rear license plate. The current year validating tab or sticker shall be displayed in the bottom right corner of the rear license plate. The tabs or stickers shall be visible at all times.

(2) (a) Every number plate shall at all times be securely fastened to the vehicle to which it is assigned, so as to prevent the plate from swinging, and shall be horizontal at a height not less than twelve inches from the ground, measuring from the bottom of such plate, in a place and position to be clearly visible, and shall be maintained free from foreign materials and in a condition to be clearly legible.

Editor’s note: This version of paragraph (a) is effective until January 1, 2016.

(a) (I) The owner or driver of a motor vehicle shall securely fasten the license plate to the vehicle to which it is assigned so as to prevent the plate from swinging.

(II) Except when authorized by this article or rule of the department, each license plate must be:

(A) Horizontal at a height not less than twelve inches from the ground, measuring from the bottom of the plate;

(B) In a place and position to be clearly visible;

(C) Maintained free from foreign materials and clearly legible; and

(D) At the approximate center of the vehicle measured horizontally.

(III) Except when authorized by this article or rule of the department, the rear license plate must be mounted on or within eighteen inches of the rear bumper.

Editor’s note: This version of paragraph (a) is effective January 1, 2016.

(b) A person shall not operate a motor vehicle with an affixed device or a substance that causes all or a portion of a license plate to be unreadable by a system used to automatically identify a motor vehicle. Such a device includes, without limitation, a cover that distorts angular visibility; alters the color of the plate; or is smoked, tinted, scratched, or dirty so as to impair the legibility of the license plate.

(3) (a) A person who violates any provision of this section commits a class B traffic infraction.

(b) A person who violates paragraph (b) of subsection (2) of this section commits a class A traffic infraction and shall be punished by a fine of one hundred dollars.

(4) Notwithstanding subsections (1) to (3) of this section, the owner of a military vehicle may elect to not display the vehicle’s assigned license plate if the license plate is physically in the military vehicle and is available for inspection to any peace officer who requests the plate.

HISTORY: Source: L. 2005: Entire article amended with relocations, p. 1108, § 2, effective August 8.L. 2008: (1) amended, p. 321, § 2, effective July 1.L. 2010: (4) added,  (SB 10-075), ch. 169, p. 597, § 2, effective August 11; (1)(a) amended,  (HB 10-1172), ch. 320, p. 1491, § 10, effective October 1.L. 2014: (1)(a) amended,  (HB 14-1367), ch. 303, p. 1286, § 3, effective July 1.L. 2015: (2)(a) amended,  (SB 15-090), ch. 334, p. 1360, § 2, effective January 1, 2016.



Editor’s note: (1) This section is similar to former § 42-3-123 as it existed prior to 2005.(2) (a) Section 6(1)(b) of chapter 334 (SB 15-090) Session Laws of Colorado 2015, provides that changes to this section take effect only if the department of revenue receives enough gifts, grants, and donations for materials, start-up costs, and computer programming necessary to implement this act, and take effect January 1, 2016, only if the revisor of statutes receives written notice that such funds were received.(b) Section 6(3) of chapter 334 (SB 15-090) Session Laws of Colorado 2015, provides that changes to this section by the act apply to temporary registrations issued on or after July 1, 2016.
 
ANNOTATION

Annotator’s note. Since § 42-3-202 is similar to § 42-3-123 as it existed prior to the 2005 amendment to article 3 of title 42, which resulted in the relocation of provisions, relevant cases construing that provision and its predecessors have been included in the annotations to this section.

Where the suspect’s license plate was obstructed by dirt, in violation of this section, the troopers had a reasonable suspicion that criminal activity was occurring. Although after stopping the vehicle, the troopers could see the plates well enough to discern that they were current, the continued obstruction of the plate constituted an ongoing license plate violation and thus a reasonable purpose for the stop. Because the troopers had a reasonable suspicion and a reasonable stop, they properly initiated an investigatory stop. People v. Altman, 938 P.2d 142 (Colo. 1997).

Applied in People v. Clements, 665 P.2d 624 (Colo. 1983).