Lawsuits

Class-action suit certified for 60K+ detainees at Aurora ICE facility ‘forced’ to work for $1 a day

DENVER – A federal judge in Colorado will allow tens of thousands of people housed at an Aurora immigration center who were required to work, in some instances for $1 a day, to form a class to continue a lawsuit against the company that is contracted by Immigration and Customs Enforcement to run the facility.

Nine people have filed lawsuits over the past two years against the GEO Group, which is contracted to run the ICE facility in Aurora. All were housed at the facility while awaiting deportation. Continue reading

Summitville Mine in southwestern Colorado gets $1M in Superfund grant money

DENVER – An old mining site in southwest Colorado has received $1 million in Superfund grant money from the Environmental Protection Agency to continue water treatment at the site.

The Summitville Mine, located in Rio Grande County, has been under the purview of the EPA and Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment since 1992.

Mining at the site began with gold and silver mining around 1870. It continued for more than 100 years, when Summitville Consolidated Mining Corp., Inc. started large-scale open-pit mining operations using cyanide to retrieve the metals from the rock.

A leak in the pad used to leach out the precious metals was discovered in 1986. The company abandoned the site shortly thereafter and filed for bankruptcy at the end of 1992, when the EPA took the site over for cleanup operations.

Over the next two decades, the EPA and state worked extensively to contain the leak and start rehabilitating nearby land and waterways, including the Alamosa River and Wightman Fork.

Construction on a hydroelectric power system at the site got underway in 2008, and $17 million in American Reinvestment and Recovery Act funds received in 2009 helped the completion of the water treatment plant at the site.

The $1 million in new Superfund grant money will go toward continuing water treatment at the site.

The site is one of 24 EPA Superfund sites in Colorado.

———

Sign up for Denver7 email alerts to stay informed about breaking news and daily headlines.

Or, keep up-to-date by following Denver7 on Facebook, Instagram and Twitter.

Federal judge grants injunction barring Fort Collins from enforcing rule banning topless women

DENVER – A federal judge on Wednesday granted a preliminary injunction that will prevent Fort Collins from enforcing a city ordinance that bans women from exposing their breasts in public, other than for breastfeeding purposes.

U.S. District Court of Colorado Judge R. Brooke Jackson handed down the ruling Wednesday four months after he allowed portions of the lawsuit to proceed on the grounds the ordinance violated the U.S. Constitution’s Equal Protection Clause.

He ruled Wednesday that should the case have gone to trial as the plaintiffs, Free the Nipple – Fort Collins, Brittany Hoagland and Samantha Six, had sought, that he would have found that the ordinance would have indeed violated the clause.

“I also find that the other factors courts must assess in deciding a motion for preliminary injunction weight heavily in plaintiffs’ favor,” Judge Jackson wrote in his granting of the injunction.

The city of Fort Collins had sought to dismiss the claims that the statute violated the Equal Protection Clause after it successfully got some of the other initial claims in the suit tossed by Judge Jackson in October.

The statute in question, which said that “[n]o person shall knowingly appear in any public place in a nude state or state of undress such that the genitals or buttocks of either sex or the breast or breasts of a female are exposed,” was revised in November 2015.

The tailored version barred the exposing of breasts in public areas and on private property if the person could be viewed from a public place.

But Judge Jackson said the code’s modification “did little to mollify plaintiffs’ concerns” in his ruling Wednesday.

He also wrote that Fort Collins’ argument that topless females could disrupt public order is a “negative stereotype…namely, that society considers female breasts primarily as objects of sexual desire whereas male breasts are not.”

He further took the city to task for what he said was seemingly a lack of research for its various arguments in favor of the ordinance, including claims that exposed breasts could endanger children.

“Nor has Fort Collins provided any meaningful evidence that the mere sight of a female breast endangers children,” he wrote. “…It seems, then, that children do not need to be protected from the naked female breast itself but from the negative societal norms, expectation, and stereotypes associated with it.”

He wrote that Denver and Boulder already have legally-sound ordinances “that permit what plaintiffs here seek…But during the hearing, representatives of Fort Collins admitted that they had made no effort to contact either of these neighboring cities or any other jurisdiction to see what their experiences have been.”

“Unfortunately, our history is littered with many forms of discrimination, including discrimination against women,” Judge Jackson continued in his ruling. “As the barriers have come down, one by one, some people were made uncomfortable. In our system, however, the Constitution prevails over popular sentiment.”

He wrote that he also found that Fort Collins’ ordinance discriminates against women because of a “generalized notion” that the exposure of breasts in public “is necessarily a sexualized act.”

“I do not accept the notion, as some of those courts have, that we should continue a stereotypical distinction ‘rightly or wrongly,’ or that something passes constitutional muster because it has historically been part of ‘our culture,’” Judge Jackson writes. “We would not say that, rightly or wrongly, we should continue to recognize a fundamental difference between the ability of males and females to serve on juries…Or between male and female estate administrators…or between military cadets…or between the ability of males and females to practice law…nor should we.”

“After much thought, I have concluded that going out on this lonely limb is the right thing to do,” he continued. “I have no more right to fall back on ‘the way we have always done it’ than those who have reassessed their thinking.”

Fort Collins City Attorney Carrie Daggett issued the following statement to Denver7 in response to the judge’s order Wednesday:

“In light of the Order issued Wednesday, the City is prohibited for now from citing women for exposing their breasts in public under the City Code, pending a final decision in this case,” said City Attorney Carrie Daggett. “While the Judge has acknowledged the other cases upholding similar laws, he concluded he is likely to find the City’s restriction on female toplessness in public is based on an impermissible gender stereotype that results in a form of gender-based discrimination. The City is reviewing the Judge’s decision in this case and City legal, policy and enforcement staff will be considering the City’s options for next steps in light of the Order.”

The plaintiffs in the case could still pursue a permanent injunction via a trial verdict.

———

Sign up for Denver7 email alerts to stay informed about breaking news and daily headlines.

Or, keep up-to-date by following Denver7 on Facebook, Instagram and Twitter.

Federal judge: DIA must allow emergency 24-hour permits for protests, can’t restrict sign size

DENVER – A federal judge on Wednesday ruled that Denver International Airport and the city of Denver must change some of its rules to accommodate protests at the airport, like the one that happened in late January in response to President Donald Trump’s executive orders on immigration.

Police at DIA drew the ire of many of the protesters, whom were told to leave because they did not have a proper seven-day permit required by the city.

Two of the protesters filed a federal lawsuit in early February saying their civil rights had been violated when they were forced to leave, and that the requirement of the seven-day permit was “ridiculous.”

They sought a preliminary injunction against the seven-day permit rule, calling it “unconstitutional.”

U.S. District Court of Colorado Judge William J. Martinez on Wednesday agreed with parts of their lawsuit, but struck down others.

Judge Martinez ruled that the city and airport will have to issue an “expressive activity permit” sought with 24 hours’ notice if the applicant “seeks a permit for the purpose of communicating topical ideas reasonably relevant to the purposes and mission of the Airport”, so long as the activity could not have been foreseen seven or more days in advance.

This means that protests that come together quickly, as the January one did because of the executive orders, could still receive a permit if they give the airport a day’s notice.

Judge Martinez also ruled that the airport and city must “make all reasonable efforts” to accommodate the requested location of a protest or gathering both inside and outside of the airport’s terminal as long as it’s at a place where “the unticketed public” is normally allowed.

The judge also struck down rules barring picketing inside of the airport’s terminal, as well as a rule that restricted the size of signage used during protests.

However, Judge Martinez ruled that the airport and city will not be required to accommodate a “truly spontaneous” demonstration, though both will be allowed to provide accommodations.

He also ruled that protesters would not be allowed to determine the exact location within the terminal they wish to demonstrate, giving the airport some say as to where the gatherings could be held on airport property.

He also refused to strike down the seven-day permit rules as “unconstitutional,” as the plaintiffs had sought.

This is a developing news story; stay posted to Denver7 for updates.

———

Sign up for Denver7 email alerts to stay informed about breaking news and daily headlines.

Or, keep up-to-date by following Denver7 on Facebook, Instagram and Twitter.

Adams Co. marijuana grow leads to uncovering of large grow, distribution operation linked to Neb.

DENVER – A Westminster man’s illegal marijuana grow led North Metro Task Force and federal agents to four of his other grow-houses and uncovered a distribution ring that linked to Nebraska.

The bust was described in court documents filed Thursday in the U.S. District Court of Colorado that backed a U.S. attorney’s notice of complaint for forfeiture of around $65,000 in cash seized from the man’s grow-houses.

The task force first found out about Timothy Koch’s alleged grow and distribution operation in May 2016, when they went to a home in the 11000 block of Clay Court in Westminster on a complaint that the house smelled of marijuana.

Inside, they found Koch’s brother, Jason Koch, who eventually agreed to let officers inside to inspect the grow. Jason told officers his brother was renting the house, and that he had recently moved to Colorado from Nebraska and was being paid $20 an hour to trim and package the marijuana for his brother.

After getting a full search warrant, detectives found 278 pounds of marijuana, 2 ½ pounds of marijuana concentrate, $65,119 in cash, a money counting machine and paperwork for other properties Timothy owned or was renting.

Jason told investigators that people in a white pickup from Nebraska would come to Westminster every few weeks to pick up between 60 and 120 pounds of marijuana from the house.

Jason said Timothy would leave shortly after the pickup and head to Nebraska as well. Jason said Timothy would return a few days later each time with between $80,000 and $120,000.

He also told investigators that Timothy was renting or owned four other properties across Colorado, in Thornton, Broomfield, Dacono.

Timothy’s neighbor across the street in Westminster also had a marijuana grow operation that was allegedly part of the distribution ring.

Agents raided those facilities as well, and by the end of the raids, had seized 360 pounds of dry marijuana, 2.67 pounds of marijuana concentrate, 638 plants and the $65,119 that is in DEA custody.

Also found at the houses, according to the complaint, was a rejection letter from the state Medical Marijuana Registry and documents related to the properties and several marijuana-related businesses.

The DEA agent who compiled the report added that Timothy had reported a combined $31,000 in combined income in 2015 and 2016 via Smile Labs, a company registered in his name.

Timothy Koch has been charged in Adams County with marijuana cultivation, marijuana distribution of between 25 and 50 pounds, marijuana possession with intent to distribute between 25 and 50 pounds, manufacturing marijuana concentrate and marijuana conspiracy.

———

Sign up for Denver7 email alerts to stay informed about breaking news and daily headlines.

Or, keep up-to-date by following Denver7 on Facebook, Instagram and Twitter.

Colorado’s senators split votes on controversial EPA nominee Scott Pruitt, who is confirmed

WASHINGTON – Colorado’s U.S. senators split their votes on the president’s nominee to lead the Environmental Protection Agency, Scott Pruitt, who was confirmed by the Senate in a 52-46 vote.

Pruitt, who has been Oklahoma’s attorney general since he was elected in 2010, has faced scrutiny over his ties to the oil and gas industry and has filed 14 lawsuits against the EPA over water and air pollution regulations over his career. Continue reading

Colorado Attorney General sues Boulder County over oil and gas moratorium

BOULDER, Colo. – The Colorado Attorney General’s Office sued Boulder County and its board of commissioners Tuesday after weeks of threatening to do so if the county did not repeal a moratorium on oil and gas drilling in unincorporated parts of the county.

Attorney General Cynthia Coffman and the state of Colorado are plaintiffs in the lawsuit, which Coffman had threatened since last month if the county didn’t repeal its moratorium by Feb. 10.

Boulder County put the moratorium in place in 2012 and has extended it eight times, most recently in December, when county commissioners voted to extend it to May 1.

But the suit filed Tuesday points to a 2015 Colorado Supreme Court case that went against Fort Collins’ moratorium on fracking and a Longmont moratorium, and said that local governments cannot regulate the oil and gas industry.

The 2015 case’s ruling said that the Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Act gives the state sole power to regulate oil and gas development and operations within the state.

In both rulings, the court said that even temporary moratoriums, which Boulder has argued its is, “deleteriously affects what is intended to be a state-wide program of regulation.”

In Tuesday’s filing, Coffman and the state ask for the court to declare that Boulder County’s moratorium is pre-empted by the Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Act, and also for it to put in place a permanent injunction that would keep the county and board from enforcing the moratorium. Coffman and the state also ask for court costs and other relief justifiable by the court.

Boulder County and state officials responded swiftly Tuesday afternoon.

“The Colorado Attorney General sent a special valentine to the oil and gas industry today against Boulder County for our working to safeguard our community from the industrial impacts of oil and gas development,” a news release from the county said.

But it maintains, as it did when Coffman first threatened to sue, that its moratorium is “of a materially shorter duration and is consistent with Colorado law.”

The county said its board of commissioners will meet as planned on March 14 and March 23 to review the county’s new oil and gas regulations for unincorporated parts of the county.

“It’s our right and our responsibility to protect our residents and to protect our world-class environment from the impact of oil and gas development, which is very industrial…” said Commissioner Elise Jones.

Five Democrats who represent areas of Boulder County in the state House lambasted Coffman’s suit, saying she was suing on the behalf of a private industry.

“The Attorney General has decided to wield the power of her office for the benefit of private companies at the expense of local communities,” said Majority Leader KC Becker, D-Boulder.

But Colorado Oil and Gas Association President and CEO Dan Haley told Denver7 that Boulder’s five-year old moratorium is illegal.

“We support the Attorney General’s decision,” he said. “For us, it’s very clear.  It’s about the law.  It’s not about fracking, It’s not about drilling.  It’s not about pipelines.  It’s about whether, or  not, we have a rule of law in Colorado.”

Rep. Jared Polis, the Democrat who represents the 2nd Congressional District and is the Vice Chair of the Sustainable Energy and Environment Coalition, slammed Coffman’s lawsuit Tuesday.

“We should all be outraged that the Colorado attorney general has chosen to use public tax dollars to bully Boulder County on behalf of the oil and gas industry,” Polis said in a statement. “The oil and gas industry is more than equipped to bring their own lawsuits, and I suspect they have opted not to sue Boulder County because they know Colorado law allows for a short term fracking moratorium.  What the attorney general has done today is a purely political waste of money, and it is not legally sound.”

State Sen. Matt Jones, D-Louisville, also criticized Coffman’s perceived ties with the oil and gas industry in a statement.

“This is disgraceful. After seeing the Attorney General’s and Oil and Gas industry’s press releases about the lawsuit sent out almost at the same time, I think it’s safe to assume the Attorney General is using the powers of her office and using tax dollars to intimidate and sue taxpayers at the behest of special interest industries,” he said. “The question I have for the Attorney General is this: how many oil and gas corporations did she consult with before sending out her threat letter to Boulder County on January 26?”

———

Sign up for Denver7 email alerts to stay informed about breaking news and daily headlines.

Or, keep up-to-date by following Denver7 on Facebook, Instagram and Twitter.

Denver college student from Libya sues Trump administration over executive order

DENVER – A Muslim Colorado college student on Tuesday joined a growing list of people in various states who are suing the Trump administration over an executive order that temporarily restricts refugees and other immigrants from the U.S.

Zakaria Hagig, 24, who is originally from Libya but is legally studying business full time at Community College of Denver, had the suit filed on his behalf in U.S. District Court of Colorado Tuesday morning. Continue reading

Hundreds of potential Colorado refugees, immigrants affected by Pres. Trump’s executive order

DENVER – Hundreds of people projected to come to Colorado this year will be affected by President Trump’s executive order barring refugees and people with visas from certain predominantly-Muslim countries.

The Colorado Department of Human Services projected in a report released in the past few months that a total of 2,195 refugees will arrive to Colorado in Fiscal Year 2017, which runs from October 2016 through September 2017. Continue reading

Colorado ‘Hamilton electors’ lawsuits cost taxpayers nearly $40K in legal fees

DENVER – Colorado taxpayers paid nearly $40,000 in lawyers’ fees in the court battles that surrounded two Democratic Colorado electors who unsuccessfully fought the state law that required them to vote for Hillary Clinton.

Electors Polly Baca and Robert Nemanich fought the state law, which requires electors to cast their electoral ballot for the candidate that won the state’s popular vote, in federal court – first in U.S. District Court of Colorado, then in the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals once their initial request for an injunction was denied.

The Colorado Secretary of State also filed suit against Baca and Nemanich in Denver District Court in order to have a judge clarify the legal ramifications the electors would face should they either not take the oath of office for electors or fail to follow state rules in casting their votes.

Baca and Nemanich were among a group of so-called “Hamilton Electors” across the country who argued that state laws telling electors who to vote for were unconstitutional. The movement was aimed at getting Republican electors not to vote for Donald Trump and electors in states without binding rules to cast their vote for someone else as well.

In the end, fewer than 10 electoral votes nationally were cast for a candidate not named Trump or Clinton.

One of them was from Micheal Baca of Denver, who took the oath of office but “wrote in” John Kasich’s name on the ballot, thus invalidating it and opening the door for his possible prosecution. He was replaced after failing to adhere to his oath, and all of Colorado’s votes ended up going to Clinton as mandated by the state law.

LAWYERS’ FEES ADD UP, BUT NOT OUT OF ORDINARY

Some readers had asked how much lawyers’ fees for the state would cost because of the court fights. The state’s attorneys were provided through the Attorney General’s Office and were used by the attorney general, Gov. John Hickenlooper and Secretary of State Wayne Williams in the cases. Williams was the only plaintiff in the suit asking Denver District Court for guidance.

Attorneys’ fees for various cases each office appears in court for are tabulated at the end of each month. The Secretary of State’s Office provided the figures to Denver7 Thursday after they were requested in December.

In both cases, the attorneys billed the state at $98.26 an hour.

Defense fees in the federal case amounted to a total of $9,213.44 in December for the federal case for the Secretary of State’s Office, which said its fees were one-third of the total fees. The Attorney General’s Office and Governor’s Office were both billed the same amount, leading to a total of $27,640.32 charged to taxpayers for 93.77 hours of attorneys’ work.

In the Denver case in which the Secretary of State’s Office was the only plaintiff, the office was billed for 107.7 hours at $98.26 an hour, equaling $10,582.59. It was also billed $23.12 for paralegal and investigator services, bringing the total bill for that case to $10,605.71.

Those two figures combined mean taxpayers paid $38,246.03 in December for the elector court cases.

To put that in context, the Secretary of State’s Office was billed a total of $136,955.55 in December alone, meaning state taxpayers likely pay millions in attorneys’ fees for various agencies and offices each year.

There are likely to be some minimal additional fees in January as well, as the federal case remains open in the U.S. District Court of Colorado pending the resolution of a motion filed Jan. 12 by the state to stay discovery and disclosures in the case.

Lawyers for Baca and Nemanich were granted an unopposed motion to dismiss their appeal in the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals two days earlier.

The investigation into Micheal Baca’s actions also remains pending, though there are few instances of “faithless electors” who violated state elector law ever being prosecuted in the U.S.

Messages sent Friday to the Colorado Attorney General’s Office asking whether Baca would be prosecuted went unreturned.

———

Sign up for Denver7 email alerts to stay informed about breaking news and daily headlines.

Or, keep up-to-date by following Denver7 on Facebook, Instagram and Twitter.