Sharon Cairns Mann:  award-winning author
  • Home
  • Fiction
  • Nonfiction
  • Awards
  • Blog: A Good Read
  • FOR SALE: Aflac Duck Collection
  • Contact & Sign Up
  • Product

Blog Post #17:  How’s that for Due Process?

9/27/2016

0 Comments

 
"The board is looking for easy headlines and scapegoats." Dan Foster
The Administrative Law Judge signed his decision on September 14, 2007 and sent it to the attorneys on September 24, and I’m sure we heard about it fairly quickly thereafter. (Click here to read the decision.)
 
As you may recall, the Board of the Division of Real Estate had filed an emergency motion against Julie on June 1, stating that they found “that the health, safety, and welfare imperatively requires emergency action as a result of Respondent’s conduct.” (Seriously, Dear Reader, was your health, safety, or welfare threatened by a real estate appraiser doing appraisals in rural areas?) So, without benefit of due process, they had suspended Julie’s license before the hearing.  Their motion included many trumped up “counts,” “allegations,” and “aggravating factors.” They asked the judge that her license be revoked and that she be fined $500 for each offense (it’s unclear what they consider an “offense” in their motion).
 
The ALJ recapped his understanding (still with much confusion about annexation and utilities), and concluded that Julie had made errors, but “the evidence is not sufficient to prove that her errors were willful or that her valuation of the property was intentionally inflated.  The ALJ therefore concludes that the revocation of the Respondent’s license is not appropriate, but that her appraiser’s license be suspended for six months with credit given for the period her license has been under summary suspension (approximately three months at that time). Respondent’s license shall also be put on probation for three years. In addition Respondent shall be fined $500.”
 
We were happy and relieved for Julie, and we felt vindicated ourselves that all this nonsense about fraud, collusion and abuse was now behind us.

Toll Goes Against Judge’s Order

Unfortunately, Erin Toll had other plans for Julie.  We found out in early December that Toll had the Division of Real Estate go against the judge’s order, reduced Julie’s license to the lowest level possible, and fined her $10,000.  "This stipulated agreement is good for the community because if we simply revoked her license, she can reapply in two years," said Erin Toll, director of the state's Division of Real Estate. "Revocations are not permanent."  (See Denver Post article, below.)

In other words, Toll was trying to inflict the most harm possible on Julie. How’s that for due process?
O'Gorman's attorney, Dan Foster, said that while the judge found some violations, they were not considered willful.

"All the allegations of fraud that were out there in the media and how she was doing fraudulent appraisals were proven wrong, and we still lose," Foster said. "I think they're going to use her as their poster child and do whatever they can to show that they're getting tough on bad appraisers. The board is looking for easy headlines and scapegoats."
​

It’s a sad outcome when truth is not upheld, and justice is not delivered.  
© Sharon Cairns Mann
ogorman.decision.judge.pdf
File Size: 961 kb
File Type: pdf
Download File

denver_post.12.06.07.appraiser_fined.pdf
File Size: 82 kb
File Type: pdf
Download File

0 Comments

Blog Post #16:  The O'Gorman Hearing: Caught with their Pants Down

9/19/2016

0 Comments

 
“The courtroom was stunned, the State’s people floundered, their mouths gaped open, and the hearing ended.  It was a beautiful and movie-worthy ending.”
Picture
​
Blog Post #16:  The O’Gorman Hearing: Caught with their Pants Down

 
Julie’s hearing was set for August 28th and 29th.  Somewhere along the way, her attorneys, Dan Foster and Randall Chin, requested that Stan and I be involved. As we approached the hearing, we had multiple conversations with Foster and Chin, and were impressed with their competence and zeal.  They listened to us very attentively, which was going to be the downfall of the state’s case against Julie (as you will see), because the state had never contacted us.  Stan was to be an actual witness (potential), while I was an “advisory witness.”  That meant that Stan would be sequestered outside of the hearing, and called on if needed.  I was able to sit in on the hearing, right behind Julie’s attorneys, and make suggestions if I heard things that needed correction, or to answer questions, but I was not going to be called to the witness stand.
 
The hearing was to be held before an Administrative Law Judge.
 
As we prepared for the hearing, things got more and more bizarre. We found out that the state’s investigator (who never contacted us), had instead contacted T.C., our former development partner.  This was, of course, laughable for a variety of reasons, and I still have a transcript of their phone conversation in my possession, a phone conversation in which T.C. sounds (to me) confused or impaired.  In addition to his inability to answer the investigator’s questions clearly and succinctly, T.C. was not a reliable witness or source of information because:


  1.  He was a disgruntled former partner;
  2. He is not, nor has he ever been a developer, in spite of his claims to the contrary.  He’s a surveyor.
  3. He had no official “voice” – he wasn’t a partner in our project (he had temporarily been a joint-venture partner, but that fell through); he wasn’t an appraiser; he wasn’t a real estate agent; he wasn’t a city council member; he didn’t work for the county; and he wasn’t an engineer.  He was a surveyor. Period.
  4. We were told by a family member that T.C. has Alzheimer’s and has been on medication for five years, which did not at all surprise us because we had become seriously concerned about his competency, and, in fact, if I were to print the transcript of the phone conversation that he had with the state’s investigator, you would see what I mean. 
 
Nonetheless, the state decided to use T.C. as a witness. 
 
The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) did a fine job of handling the hearing, but the State’s case seemed to be conducted by clowns.  I was horrified when, in their opening statement, they alleged a criminal web of deceit, fraud, abuse, and collusion between the landowners and Julie and our attorney.  (Please remember that we had never talked to Julie, and had never laid eyes on her until this moment – it’s pretty hard to collude with someone you’ve never met or talked to!)
 
Lousy Witness
 
They called our former partner T.C., and, as predicted, he turned out to be a lousy witness for the state, and they should never have called him.  The state was trying to get him to state that the project was worthless, but of course he would be a poor witness for the state.  They seemed to have missed the point that he expected to make millions of dollars on the project, and that he had sued us for $15 million in future profits.  He couldn’t exactly deny that, so it was counterproductive for the state to use him as a witness.  Julie’s attorney, Foster, wrung T.C.’s tail on his lawsuit against us for future profits, later commenting to me and Stan that T.C. had very quickly turned into a witness for Julie, which was true from my observation, as well.
 
Goofy Hearsay
 
The deputy AG and his assistant, were constantly bungling the papers, and making easily refutable allegations.  Most of what they presented was goofy hearsay, which couldn’t and didn’t get admitted as evidence.
 
Funny Allegations
 
Some of the funniest allegations were that we had no utilities to our subdivision, therefore the appraisal was overvalued.  It was so silly because you could see the power lines in the photos in the appraisal and, of course, we had our receipts for the lines we had installed.  Additionally, both we and T.C. had moved into the first two homes in the subdivision and we were enjoying water, phone, electricity and gas.  The fact that they would make allegations like that without visiting the property and talking to us, the landowners, violated the fundamental principles of good practice of law.  And you, Gentle Reader, should know that as funny as it is, it’s very scary that your government has this kind of ludicrous and abusive power to simply stand in a courtroom and say things that aren’t true – and that they’ve never investigated, and for which they have no supporting evidence.

The hearing went on for two days, and I heard more boring details about the Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice (USPAP) than I ever wanted to know.  
​
As the testimony droned on, the State looked worse and worse. They were basing their entire case on the fact that annexation of our subdivision to the City of Walsenburg had been denied (not true), which therefore would theoretically mean that the land was less valuable (I’m not sure that’s even a supportable theory).
 
But, as I showed in my previous post, their argument was entirely irrelevant because when the City granted us extra-territorial water, we had chosen not to pursue annexation and to develop in the county (not to mention – again -- the fact that the annexation had never been denied). 
 
In addition – and naturally – the state never presented any evidence of fraud, collusion, abuse or criminal behavior, because 1) there wasn’t any; and 2) that’s not what the case was about in the first place.
 
Caught With Their Pants Down
 
Finally, while the State’s deputy clowns fumbled around at their desk, not paying attention to what Foster (Julie’s attorney) was saying, Foster got a certified copy of the minutes of the City Council meeting at which they had approved the annexation admitted into evidence and abruptly moved to rest.
 
The courtroom was stunned, the State’s people floundered, their mouths gaped open, and the hearing ended.  It was a beautiful and movie-worthy ending.
 
Now we just had to wait for the judge’s decision.  
© Sharon Cairns Mann

0 Comments

    Author

    Hi! Welcome to this blog!   I'm a professional writer and award-winning author. I didn't really want to write this blog, but I also believe that the story of the huge conservation easement fiasco in Colorado has not yet been adequately told. So here it is!

    It's so long, I've had to serialize it, so please note that you have to START with Blog Post #1 (June 28, 2016) for the story to make sense!  So, if you're new to the blog, please go back to the beginning and start there.   

    New Post Notifications 
    ​The best way to hear about each my new blog posts on Swindled is to just go to my Public Facebook Page at
    Sharon Cairns Mann Writer
    and hit the "Like" button in the cover photo at the top. Every time I do a new blog post here, I'll announce it there, so it should keep you up-to-date. 

    But if you are interested in free writing tips and coaching, please subscribe to "Writerly News" by clicking the button below.

    Subscribe to "Writerly News"

    Archives

    April 2018
    April 2017
    January 2017
    December 2016
    November 2016
    October 2016
    September 2016
    August 2016
    July 2016
    June 2016

    Categories

    All

    RSS Feed

Powered by Create your own unique website with customizable templates.