HomeMy WebLinkAbout2021-cv-2306-RM-KLM - Perry v. State of Colorado, et al - 046 - Pl's Reply in support of Motion to Amend PetitionV.
and,
and,
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Civil Action No. 1 :21-cv-02306-RM-KLM
Robert-Lawrence: Perry, Plaintiff
Each 'STATE OF COLORADO' Individual employee,
executive officer, and/or administrative official acting
personally, individually, and/or in combination namely,
Alita King, Thomas Lynch, and Daniel McDonald, and
each 'doe' administrator, agent, and/or executive, and
Steven Vasconcellos, and 'doe' judicial administrators;
The 'CITY OF FORT COLLINS', et. al., including each
Individual administrative official, agent, employee and
or executive officer, acting personally, individually, and
or together, including each individual member of the city
council and Mayor, the City Attorney, the City Manager,
Darin Atteberry, Ross Cunniff, Gerry Horak, Ray Martinez,
Kristin Stephens, Ken Summers, Wade Troxell, including
'doe' agents, administrators, executives, officers and I or
each 'doe' appointee administrator, agent, police officer,
official, and 'City' employees, namely, Brandi Lynn Neito,
Dan Callahan, Jill Hueser, and Ryan Westlind;
CSU BOARD OF GOVERNORS, for 'CSU', and each
individual member of the 'CSU Board of Governors', for
'COLORADO STATE UNIVERSITY' and each 'doe' and
or named administrators, agents, employees or officials
acting personally, individually, and or together, namely,
Scott Harris, Jeff Goetz, Jesse Ihnen, Michael Lohman,
Phil Morris, Derek Smith, Lynn Johnson, Mark Gill, and
Nie Olsen, and each heir appointee and/or official; each
Individual Jointly and Severally Liable as Co-Defendants.
FILED
UNITED !TATES DISTRICT COURT
DENVER. COLORADO
MAR 24 2022
JEFFREY P. COLWELL
CLERK
REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO AMEND PETITION
1
REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO AMEND PETITION
Case 1:21-cv-02306-RM-KLM Document 46 Filed 03/24/22 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 21
INTRODUCTION
This is Petitioner's first Motion to Amend his Petition for Relief. Petitioner seeks
only declaratory judgment and injunctive relief for continuing violations of his civil rights;
Petitioner asserts that named and doe individual Defendants, acting under authority of
state and local law continue to deny Petitioner his inalienable right to conduct activities
of daily living, and equal access to public places. Petitioner has made allegations that
are supported by citations of law and case precedent, including indisputable facts that
supports his claims for declaratory judgment and injunctive relief finding that:
a) Defendant, CSU Board of Governors knowingly permitted CSU campus police to
enforce an exclusionary policy to permanently deny Petitioner access and use of CSU
campus and other public facilities, including the public library and public transportation
facilities in violation of state law, including C.R.S. § 18-9-109 (1); and that:
b) Individual Defendants, acting under color of law, denied Petitioner's constitutional
equal right to due process and fair trial by deliberately misapplying local and state law
by enforcing citations for trespass on public property (CSU) though, state trespass law
and local ordinance specifically applies only to private property; and that:
c) Defendant City of Fort Collins officials, acting under color of law, continue to deny
Petitioner a constitutional right to conduct activities of daily living, and equal access to
public places by enforcing CSU campus police permanent 'exclusionary orders, and an
unlawful, fraudulent permanent protective order by applying unconstitutional ordinances
against camping and trespass, effectively banning Petitioner from public property.
2
REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO AMEND PETITION
Case 1:21-cv-02306-RM-KLM Document 46 Filed 03/24/22 USDC Colorado Page 2 of 21
SUMMARY ARGUMENT
1. City Defendants filed a "Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs Amended Complaint", which
has not been ruled upon by the Court. Their Motion to Dismiss initially stated that the
alleged deficiencies they identified in the Amended Complaint cannot be corrected by
further amendment. .Nevertheless, Petitioner has filed a Motion to Amend the Petition
for Relief to cure the alleged deficiencies that City Defendants identified. Except, now
City Defendants repeat the same arguments they presented in their Motion to Dismiss
without identifying how the additional factual allegations which Plaintiff seeks to include
in the Proposed Second Amended Petition for Relief fail to address or cure the alleged
deficiencies in the First Amended Petition for Relief. Instead, City Defendants counted
the number of pages and paragraphs and offers only conclusory assertions that:
a) Petitioner's Proposed Second Amended Petition for Relief is too long; that,
b) Petitioner's Proposed Second Amended Petition for Relief does not comply with
F.R.C.P. 8 that sets a minimum standard of pleading by short plain statements; and,
c) Petitioner's Proposed Second Amended Petition for Relief does not comply with
F.R.C.P. 15 because the additional allegations are not identified by underlining; and,
d) That Petitioner's Proposed Second Amended Petition for Relief is futile; and,
e) That Petitioner's Proposed Second Amended Petition for Relief is dilatory.
2. Petitioner will address City Defendants' conclusory assertions that the Proposed
Second Amended Petition for Relief is futile and dilatory by providing quotations of the
additional allegations, which included the following text, word for word:
3
REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO AMEND PETITION
Case 1:21-cv-02306-RM-KLM Document 46 Filed 03/24/22 USDC Colorado Page 3 of 21
THE CIVIL RIGHTS CONSPIRACY
22. The City of Fort Collins, by and through agents, employed officers, and elected
officials are engaged in a campaign against 'homeless' people. The City Council has
enacted ordinances against 'camping' and 'trespass' that are selectively enforced just
,__ ,, against people_in the community that are assumed to be 'homeless' or 'indigent'. The
campaign includes police officers issuing verbal orders permanently banning anyone,
suspected as 'homeless', from public property, such as CSU campus, using the vague
and over-broad powers granted by the City 'camping' and 'trespass' ordinances.
23. For their part, CSU administrative and executive officials adopted and enforced
the 'exclusionary order' policy challenged as unconstitutional. CSU police enforce the
'exclusionary orders' with trespass citations exercising the broad discretion afforded by
the 'trespass' ordinance, and state statute, by erroneously presuming that 'exclusionary
orders' are enforceable with 'trespass' citations for being on public property.
24. CSU 'exclusionary order' policy immediately denies access to CSU campus to
the identified 'subject' issued an 'exclusionary order' form, that functions as a personal
'no trespass' notice, subject to enforcement with criminal citations of 'trespass'.
25. V.P. for University Operations, Lynn Johnson, implemented CSU 'exclusionary
order' policy that allows CSU campus police to, prejudicially, deny access and use of
CSU campus to whoever they want; in this case, permanently excluding Plaintiff from
CSU campus for allegedly 'feeding squirrels'. Notably, CSU does not have a policy
against 'feeding squirrels', nor is there any such local or state prohibition.
4
REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO AMEND PETITION
Case 1:21-cv-02306-RM-KLM Document 46 Filed 03/24/22 USDC Colorado Page 4 of 21
26. CSU campus police are enforcing CSU 'exclusionary order' policy, which was
authorized by Lynn Johnson, V.P. for University Operations, further supported by CSU
then-acting Chief of Police, Scott Harris and then-acting CSU Chief of Staff, Mark Gill,
who appointed a CSU employee, Nie Olsen to unilaterally affirm the 'exclusionary order'
CSU campus police issued against Plaintiff. Nie Olsen acted as a judge and hearsay
witness during the 'administrative appeal' of the permanent 'exclusionary order'.
27. Plaintiff was issued the first "exclusionary order" by CSU campus police officer,
Jesse Ihnen on May 18, 2016, for allegedly 'feeding squirrels'. Lynn Johnson, CSU VP
for University Operations, lifted the 'exclusionary order' after Plaintiff submitted a written
appeal challenging CSU "exclusionary order" policy as unconstitutional and cited other
criminal and civil statutory citations which conflict with CSU "exclusionary order" policy.
C.R.S. § 18-9-109 (1), prohibits denying access and use of university property, unless
such person is interfering with the functions of the university, either through the use of
force or violence, or the threat of force or violence. [See: C. RS. § 18-9-109 (2)]
28. Then, in response, CSU Vice President for University Operations, Lynn Johnson,
amended CSU 'exclusionary order' policy to remove reference to C.R.S. § 18-9-109 (2)
after Plaintiff objected to the first 'exclusionary order' issued against him based solely
upon him 'feeding squirrels'. On July 21, 2016, CSU 'exclusionary order' policy was
amended to redefine the purpose of the policy for: "maintenance of its public buildings
and property, including the prohibition of activities or conduct within public buildings or
on public property". Then, this was applied in Plaintiff's 2019 'trespass' cases.
5
REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO AMEND PETITION
Case 1:21-cv-02306-RM-KLM Document 46 Filed 03/24/22 USDC Colorado Page 5 of 21
29. By such amendment to CSU 'exclusionary order' policy removing any reference
to C.R.S. § 18-9-109 (2), and such statutory limitations provided for by law, it allowed
CSU campus police to discriminate against Plaintiff to apply "exclusionary order" policy
to such conduct as: 'feeding squirrels'. Curiously, CSU 'exclusionary order' policy was
amended after Plaintiff filed this petition for relief; CSU 'exclusionary order' policy once
again cites C.R.S. § 18-9-109 as statutory authority, with conditional application.
30. CSU campus police cited Plaintiff with 'trespass' under C.R.S. § 18-4-504, and
Fort Collins Municipal Code (F.C.M.C.) section 17-40(a), that applies the definition of
"Enter or remain unlawfully" defined by F.C.M.C. Sec. 17-1. However, neither the state
trespass statute nor city trespass ordinance applies to public property. like CSU.
31. C.R.S. § 18-4-201 defines what conduct would constitute "enters unlawfully" or
"remains unlawfully", and provides exception for public property; thus, Plaintiff should
not have been cited for 'trespass on CSU campus. In fact, C.R.S. § 18-9-109 prohibits
denying access and use of educational facilities, such as CSU.
32. Plaintiff was convicted twice of trespass; once in county and once in municipal
court since each judge refused to allow his jury instructions, nor even allow Plaintiff to
cite C.R.S. § 18-4-201 or C.R.S. § 18-9-109. Defendants named herein denied Plaintiff
due process of a fair trial, and denied Him equal protection of the law.
33. CSU campus police officers named herein testified at Plaintiff's 'trespass' trials
that they issued Plaintiff 'exclusionary order' forms and cited Plaintiff for 'trespass' when
he disregarded such forms as unconstitutional and unlawful.
6
REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO AMEND PETITION
Case 1:21-cv-02306-RM-KLM Document 46 Filed 03/24/22 USDC Colorado Page 6 of 21
34. The testimony of CSU campus police officers sworn under oath at Plaintiffs trials
constitutes a confession that they intentionally denied Plaintiff access and use of CSU
campus in violation of C.R.S. § 18-9-109(1). CSU campus police officers have admitted
to their participation in the conspiracy to deny Plaintiffs civil, constitutional and statutory
rights-in violation of42 U.S. Code§ 1983, § 1985, and section 1986.
35. CSU campus police officers acted under color of law, in their official capacities,
and upon authority of CSU administrative officials to deny Plaintiffs constitutional right
and equal protection of the law, i.e. C.R.S. § 18-9-109(1) and C.R.S. § 18-4-201 that
would have otherwise prevented them from denying Him access to CSU campus and
prohibited them from enforcing CSU 'exclusionary order' policy with 'trespass' citations
that would not otherwise be applied to public property. like CSU campus.
36. In coordination with CSU administrative officials to enforce 'exclusionary orders,
CSU professor and then-mayor, Wade Troxel and City of Fort Collins council members,
two of whom were also CSU professors, amended the 'trespass' ordinance to remove
reference to public property from the definition of trespass in F.C.M.C. Sec. 17-1.
37. The intentional amendment and deletion of reference to public property and the
acknowledged right of the public with license and privilege to enter or remain on public
property, coincided with other acts by the City to violate Plaintiffs constitutional rights.
Contemporaneous with Plaintiff being issued a trespass citation; the City amended the
City Charter, to allow them to hire private attorneys to act as judge and prosecutor in
Plaintiffs trespass case, thus facilitating their § 1985 civil rights conspiracy.
)
7
REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO AMEND PETITION
Case 1:21-cv-02306-RM-KLM Document 46 Filed 03/24/22 USDC Colorado Page 7 of 21
.. ___ -38 .. : · The amendment of CSU.'exclusionary order' policy to allow CSU campus police
to cite Plaintiff with 'trespass', and amendment of the definition of trespass in F.C.M.C.
Sec. 17-1 to delete reference to public property and the right of the public with license
and privilege to enter or remain on public property, was still not enough to insure that
the jury would convict Plaintiff of 'trespass' under C.R.S. § 18-4-504, which has never
been applied to public property: the Larimer county district court prosecutor, Alita King
and county court judge Thomas Lynch refused to allow jury instructions, nor even allow
Plaintiff to cite C.R.S. § 18-4-201, that defines what constitutes trespass and exempts
public property: nor would they permit jury instruction on C.R.S. § 18-9-109(1), which
prohibits denying access and use of educational facilities, like CSU.
39. In order to insure that Plaintiff would be 'convicted' of 'trespass', Larimer county
district court prosecutor, Alita King conspired with county court judge Thomas Lynch to
tamper with the jury by seating a clerk from the prosecutor's office on the jury.
40. Though, to insure that Plaintiff's 'trespass' convictions would be affirmed by the
Larimer District Court, the State of Colorado also appointed then Larimer Chief Deputy
District Attorney Daniel McDonald to be the Larimer District Court Judge, assigned by
Judicial Administration to preside over the appeal of each of Plaintiff's trespass cases.
However, to insure that Plaintiff's trespass convictions were affirmed, some unidentified
person within Larimer County Judicial Administration used a PDF image of the judge's
signature to issue an "Order affirming Conviction' of each of Plaintiff's 'trespass' cases,
thereby denying Plaintiff due process and equal protection of the law.
8
REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO AMEND PETITION
Case 1:21-cv-02306-RM-KLM Document 46 Filed 03/24/22 USDC Colorado Page 8 of 21
SUMMARY ARGUMENT
41. Plaintiff asserts that CSU 'exclusionary orders' are unlawful because they allow
CSU police to commit a crime; denying lawful access and use of CSU premises in
violation of C.R.S. § 18-9-109 (1). CSU 'exclusionary orders' are unconstitutional as
supported by precedent, in Watson v. Board of Regents of University of Colorado 512
P.2d 1162, in the Colorado Supreme Court, and Dunkel v. Elkins, 325 F. Supp. 1235,
by the United States District Court. Permanent CSU 'exclusionary orders' are also
unconstitutional as 'bills of pains and penalties', and cruel and unusual punishment.
42. Plaintiff asserts that CSU 'exclusionary order' policy, as written and enforced is
unconstitutional because it allows CSU campus police to violate 42 U.S.C. § 1983 by
immediately and permanently denying all lawful access and use of CSU premises for
unlawful reasons, such as for Plaintiff allegedly 'feeding squirrels'. CSU 'exclusionary
order' policy cites C.R.S. § 18-9-109 as legal authority; yet, Plaintiff was not charged
with refusing to leave, nor accused of committing an act which would 'disrupt, impair,
interfere with.· or obstruct the lawful missions, processes, procedures, or functions of the
institution.' See also: (Colo. 2005) People v. In the interest of C.A.J. 05-CA-2413
43. CSU police 'exclusionary order' policy and administrative "appeal process" fails
to allow substantive or procedural due process; CSU police 'exclusionary order' policy
allows an employee from the Office of CSU President to affirm an 'exclusionary order'
without evidentiary standard; no evidence or witnesses are necessary and hearsay is
allowed; this resulted in violation of Plaintiff's Fifth and 14th Amendment Rights.
9
REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO AMEND PETITION
Case 1:21-cv-02306-RM-KLM Document 46 Filed 03/24/22 USDC Colorado Page 9 of 21
-=---44. Plaintiff asserts that-the City trespass ordinance (F.C.M.C.) 17-40(a) cannot be
legally applicable to public property since the Fort Collins Municipal Code definition of
"enter or remain unlawfully" excepts those licensed, invited, or privileged. § 18-4-201
C.R.S. states: "A person who, regardless of his or her intent, enters or remains in or
upon premises that are ... open to the public does so with license and privilege ... ".
45. Plaintiff asserts that the City trespass ordinance (F.C.M.C.) 17-40(a) cannot be
legally enforced by CSU police because CSU 'exclusionary orders' are unconstitutional
and violate C.R.S. § 18-9-109 (1), which prohibits denying lawful access and use.
46. The City and County unlawfully convicted Plaintiff of 'trespass' because the jury
was not advised of C.R.S. § 18-4-201 and C.R.S. § 18-9-109 (1), which prohibits CSU
campus police from denying access and use of CSU campus.
47. The County illegally 'convicted' Plaintiff of 'trespass' because the prosecutor and
judge conspired by seating a clerk from the prosecutors office on the jury.
48. The City of Fort Collins ordinances prohibiting 'camping' are Unconstitutionally
over-broad and vague, which results in discriminatory interpretation and enforcement
against people subjectively considered by police officers, as 'homeless', like Plaintiff.
The ordinances against 'camping' are so extremely over-broad and vague, as written,
that they fail to provide adequate notice to enable someone of ordinary intelligence to
understand what conduct is prohibited. Even then, as written, the ordinances against
-. -
'camping' are so vague and over-broad that any 'activity of daily living' is prohibited,
thereby eliminating any alternative other than to disregard these ordinances.
10
REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO AMEND PETITION
Case 1:21-cv-02306-RM-KLM Document 46 Filed 03/24/22 USDC Colorado Page 10 of 21
82. CSU police 'exclusionary order' policy cites C.R.S. 18-9-109 as legal authority
that 'authorizes' police to issue an 'exclusionary order' form, that were issued against
Plaintiff solely on the basis of allegedly 'feeding squirrels'. C.R.S. 18-9-109(2),(3) set
expressly conditional and limited authority to remove someone from campus only for
committing acts, which 'disrupt, impair, interfere with, or obstruct the lawful missions,
processes, procedures, or functions of the institution'.
83. CSU 'exclusionary order' policy allows CSU campus police to exclude anyone
immediately and permanently, for any reason whatsoever, and deny due process and
equal protection of the law.
84. Plaintiff repeated notified CSU attorneys and CSU Office of General Counsel by
email, that CSU campus police CSU 'Exclusionary orders' and the policy that provides
for their use violated His Constitutional Rights of due process because it immediately
deprived Him of access and use of public property without access to court review.
85. Plaintiff repeated notified CSU attorneys and CSU Office of General Counsel by
email, that CSU campus police CSU 'Exclusionary orders' and the policy that provides
for their use violated His Constitutional Rights and equal protection of the law because
C.R.S. 18-9-109(1) prohibits denying access and use of educational institutions; thus,
Plaintiff argued that CSU police committed a crime by issuing him 'exclusionary orders'
banning Him from university property.
86. Plaintiff notified CSU Board of Governors that CSU campus police 'exclusionary
order' policy violated His Rights, and requested action; however they did not reply.
11
REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO AMEND PETITION
Case 1:21-cv-02306-RM-KLM Document 46 Filed 03/24/22 USDC Colorado Page 11 of 21
87. ,, CSU website page of Office of Policy and Compliance contains a graphic chart,
that lists the hierarchy of legal authority; demonstrating that CSU 'exclusionary order'
policy is superseded by levels of legal authority, which are all superseded by the U.S
Constitution, Federal Laws and Regulations, that then supersedes State Constitution,
·· Laws and Regulations,. which supersedes Colorado State University System / Board of
Governors Policies, which supersedes Colorado State University Policies, which also
supersedes College Policies; all of which supersedes individual Department Policies,
such as CSU campus police and their 'exclusionary order' policy.
See: http://opc.prep.colostate.edu/policy-hierarchy/
88. CSU Office of Policy and Compliance (OPC) is part of the Department of Policy,
Risk and Environmental Programs (PREP) in the Division of University Operations that
is administered by Lynn Johnson, Vice President for University Operations.
89. The Office of Policy and Compliance submits proposed policies to stakeholders,
including administrative professional council, namely, Lynn Johnson, Vice President for
University Operations and CSU Chief of Staff, and CSU police command staff, namely
CSU Chief of Police, who is also part of the public safety team; all of whom approved
the CSU campus police 'exclusionary order' policy. https://opc.prep.colostate.edu/wp-
content/uploads/sites/2/2019/09/Policy-Development-slide-show-rev-9. 9.19. pdf.
90. CSU campus police 'exclusionary order' policy was reviewed by the CSU Office
of General Counsel, who must research applicable legal authority for compliance, then
the 'exclusionary order' policy was adopted and signed by CSU president.
12
REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO AMEND PETITION
Case 1:21-cv-02306-RM-KLM Document 46 Filed 03/24/22 USDC Colorado Page 12 of 21
--91: CSU 'exclusionary order' policy was promoted by Vice President for University
Operations, Lynn Johnson, and adopted on August 12, 2016; Policy ID#: 6-6023-005.
92. CSU campus police 'exclusionary order' form policy states that after one year,
the excluded person may request the CSU Chief of Police terminate the exclusionary
order; when the CSU Chief .of Police declines, then the excluded person may appeal to
CSU Chief of Staff; when the Chief of Staff declines, then 'exclusionary order' form is
presumed to be enforceable and permanent, effective for a persons life-time.
93. CSU campus police have issued Plaintiff several 'exclusionary order' forms for
allegedly 'feeding squirrels'; notably, CSU does not have a campus policy or regulation
against feeding squirrels, nor is there any local or state prohibition.
94. CSU campus police 'exclusio~ary orders' are deemed enforceable with citations
for 'trespass'. http://policylibrary.colostate.edu/policy.aspx?id=562
95. CSU campus police charged Plaintiff with 'trespass' under C.R.S § 18-4-504, for
disregarding a CSU campus police 'exclusionary order'.
96. CSU campus police charged Plaintiff with 'trespass' under Fort Collins Municipal
code 17-40(a) for disregarding a CSU campus police 'exclusionary order'.
97. Plaintiff asserts that the City trespass ordinance (F.C.M.C.) 17-40(a) cannot be
legally applicable to public property, like CSU since the Fort Collins Municipal Code
definition of "enter or remain unlawfully" is specifically limited to private property
98. At no time during or after Plaintiff's 'trespass' trials was any evidence submitted
nor did any witness testify that CSU is private property.
13
REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO AMEND PETITION
Case 1:21-cv-02306-RM-KLM Document 46 Filed 03/24/22 USDC Colorado Page 13 of 21
136. On May 17, 2019 CSU campus police officer, Derek Smith accessed the CCIC
database, then entered a false report of a permanent criminal protective order against
Plaintiff; however, there was no court ordered restraining order prohibiting Plaintiff from
entering CSU property, thereby CSU officer, Derek Smith committed numerous crimes
.~ against Plaintiff, including federal crimes regulating computer and internet use.
137. The Colorado Bureau of Investigation (CBI) is designated by the Federal Bureau
of Investigation (FBI), Criminal Justice Information Services (CJIS) Division, as the CJIS
Systems Agency for the state of Colorado.
138. Further, the responsibility of the Crime Information Management Unit (CIMU) is
to manage all the policies and business practices followed by Colorado criminal justice
agencies regarding numerous criminal justice computer systems, including the National
Crime Information Center (NCIC), the Colorado Crime Information Center (CCIC) and
the International Public Safety and Justice Network (Nlets) computer databases.
139. All CSU police officers are commissioned through Fort Collins Police Services
and the Larimer County Sheriff's Office. Officers have full law enforcement authority on
all university and state-owned property, as well as the city of Fort Collins and Larimer
County. See C.R.S. 16-2.5-148.
140. All CSU police officers are state certified through the Colorado Peace Officers
Standards and Training (POST) board and are commissioned by the CSU Board of
Governors. Officers must successfully complete or challenge an POST-approved basic
law enforcement academy prior to being appointed.
14
REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO AMEND PETITION
Case 1:21-cv-02306-RM-KLM Document 46 Filed 03/24/22 USDC Colorado Page 14 of 21
206. On December 3, 2019, acting as Fort Collins Municipal Court temporary judge,
Brandi Lynn Neito issued an "Order for Suspension of Penalty (Jail); Waiver of Rights
and Plea of Guilty or No Contest", that is fraudulent because Plaintiff did not sign the
alleged plea agreement, nor was he advised by the court, nor did he plead 'guilty', nor
did he agree to waive any of his civil, constitutional or statutory rights.
207. The "Order for Suspension of Penalty (Jail); Waiver of Rights and Plea of Guilty
or No Contest" contains an unlawful· condition for suspension of jail sentence upon the
stipulation that Plaintiff would be denied access and use of Colorado State University
property for one year.
208. The "Order for Suspension of Penalty (Jail); Waiver of Rights and Plea of Guilty
or No Contest" is unconstitutional because it denied Plaintiff equal access and use of
Colorado State University; also, this Order is unconstitutional since it violated Plaintiffs
civil rights and equal protection of the law; Brandi Lynn Neito denied Plaintiffs civil and
statutory right to equal access and use of CSU property and all public accommodations,
including the Fort Collins public bus facility on campus.
209. On January 22, 2020, Larimer County Judge, Thomas Lynch issued an Order
sentencing Plaintiff to 66 days in Larimer County Jail, 60 days were suspended upon
condition that Plaintiff was denied access and use of Colorado State University for one
year; this condition of suspended sentence was unconstitutional and unlawful since it
denied Plaintiffs Fourteenth Amendment privileges and immunities, and Right of equal
protection of the law.
15
REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO AMEND PETITION
Case 1:21-cv-02306-RM-KLM Document 46 Filed 03/24/22 USDC Colorado Page 15 of 21
2-10. Larimer District Court Judge McDonald issued the Order Affirming Conviction in
Plaintiffs municipal court trespass case, which includes an order denying Plaintiffs right
of access and use of Colorado State University property for one year from December 3,
2019 until December 3, 2020.
211. Employees of Larimer County Court Judicial Administration have access and use
of a PDF copy of a judge's electronic signature; Plaintiff notified Judicial Administrator,
Steven Vasconcellos of the unauthorized use, but he did not reply.
212. Plaintiffs appeal of the trespass conviction and sentencing order was denied by
unidentified individuals in the office of judicial administration, who wrote the 'Judgment
Affirming Conviction' and forged the judge's signature with a PDF copy. Alternatively,
an attorney acting for the City of Fort Collins wrote the 'Judgment Affirming Conviction'
of 'trespass' in municipal court and forged the judge's signature with a PDF copy.
213. Larimer District Court Judge McDonald issued an Order Affirming Conviction in
Plaintiffs county trespass case, that includes an order denying Plaintiffs right of access
and use of CSU property for one year from January 22, 2020 to January 22, 2021.
214. Alternatively, an employee within Larimer County Court Judicial Administration
used the PDF copy of Larimer District Judge Daniel McDonald's electronic signature to
issue the Order Affirming Conviction in Plaintiffs Larimer County Court trespass case.
215. Alternatively, an attorney with the Larimer District Attorney wrote the 'Judgment
Affirming Conviction' in Plaintiffs county trespass case and forged the judge's signature
with a PDF copy.
16
REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO AMEND PETITION
Case 1:21-cv-02306-RM-KLM Document 46 Filed 03/24/22 USDC Colorado Page 16 of 21
SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF
Title 28 U.S. Code§ 2201, § 2202
Declaratory and Injunctive Relief
Eighth, Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment Violations
274. The allegations of the preceding paragraphs are incorporated as though fully set
forth herein.
275. CSU 'exclusionary orders' are unconstitutional; they constitute 'bills of attainder'
by imposing punishment of permanent 'exclusion' without a judicial trial, and constitute
cruel and unusual punishment, which denies equal protection of the law.
276. Plaintiff asserts that because CSU 'exclusionary orders' are unconstitutional and
unlawful by violating C.R.S. § 18-9-109 (1) and contrary to C.R.S. § 18-4-201; thus, he
was unlawfully prosecuted, unlawfully convicted, and unlawfully imprisoned.
277. CSU 'exclusionary orders' are unconstitutional as supported by case precedent,
in Watson v. Board of Regents of University of Colorado 512 P.2d 1162, in the Colorado
Supreme Court, and Dunkel v. Elkins, 325 F. Supp. 1235, by the U.S. District Court.
278. CSU police issued Plaintiff 'exclusionary orders' for allegedly 'feeding squirrels',
which CSU police enforced against Plaintiff by issuing three trespass citations.
279. CSU campus police website contains all university policies and regulations; yet,
there is no policy or rule against 'feeding squirrels', nor is it even a city ordinance.
280. At trial, Plaintiff was found 'guilty' of 'trespass' under the Fort Collins Municipal
Code (F.C.M.C.) Sec. 40(a), which is broadly interpreted and enforced by local police
officers to discriminatorily verbally ban anyone from public property without reason.
17
REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO AMEND PETITION
Case 1:21-cv-02306-RM-KLM Document 46 Filed 03/24/22 USDC Colorado Page 17 of 21
281. The City of Fort Collins discriminatorily enforces the trespass ordinance by just
targeting the 'homeless', whom Plaintiff is considered by local officials and police.
282. Plaintiff was also found 'guilty' of 'trespass' under C.R.S. § 18-4-504, which is
interpreted and applied to presume that CSU 'exclusionary orders' are lawful; though
this was never proved, and C.R.S. § 18-9-109(1) prohibits anyone from denying lawful
access and use of educational facilities. The judge and prosecutor conspired to deny
Plaintiff due process by excluding any evidence, legal argument or testimony to prove
CSU 'exclusionary orders' are unlawful. The judge and prosecutor even committed jury
tampering by seating a clerk from the prosecutor's office on the jury. (A felony)
283. CSU police officers, 'City', 'County' and District Court 'judges' and prosecutors
violated 42 U.S.C. § 1983, § 1985, and section 1986 by intentionally denying Plaintiffs
Right to due process and equal protection of the law, and denied Him a fair trial by
withholding exculpatory evidence and misapplication of the law; presuming that CSU
'exclusionary orders' are lawful, and by applying F.C.M.C. 17-40(a) to public property;
thus, Defendants unlawfully prosecuted, convicted and imprisoned Him.
284. Defendants have enforced and intend to continue to enforce the City and state
trespass laws in the unconstitutional and unlawful manner as described by Plaintiff.
285. Plaintiff has suffered, and he continues to suffer, actual, irreparable, permanent
injury due to enforcement of the state and city trespass laws, as was reported in CCIC
as two convictions for trespass. Plaintiff has no other plain, adequate or speedy remedy
at law, so Plaintiff is entitled to Declaratory Judgment and Injunctive relief.
18
REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO AMEND PETITION
Case 1:21-cv-02306-RM-KLM Document 46 Filed 03/24/22 USDC Colorado Page 18 of 21
3. . Petitioner argues that by withdrawal of the Second Claim for Relief for the Court
to Vacate his Unlawful conviction, and substitution of the Second Claim for Relief for a
declaratory judgment and injunctive relief for continuing violation of Petitioner's Right to
be in public places and conduct activities of daily living does state a claim upon which
.,, -· relief-may granted, and the additional factual allegations and inclusion of the statement
regarding the Conspiracy against Petitioner's Rights is meritorious, and not offered for
any dilatory purpose. Also, Petitioner argues that F.R.C.P. Rule 15 is intended to be
applied and allows for amendment when a F.R.C.P. 12(b)(6) Motion to Dismiss is filed,
as City Defendants did in this case. Notably, none of the other state Defendants have
objected to the Proposed Second Amended Petition for Relief, though they also filed a
F.R.C.P. 12(b)(6) Motion to Dismiss. Evidently, CSU and state Defendants, including
the individuals identified in the Proposed Second Amended Petition for Relief have not
chosen to join in City Defendants' objection to the Proposed Second Amended Petition
for Relief and Motion to Strike Petitioner's Motion to Amend; neither has any individual
Defendants filed separate objections to the Second Amended Petition for Relief.
4. City Defendants' counsel bears the burden of persuasion to specifically address
and support their assertion that the additional factual allegations and amendments in
Plaintiffs Proposed Second Amended Petition for Relief still fail to state a claim upon
which relief may be granted, and to argue how such amendment is futile and dilatory.
Alternatively, City Defendants could just file another F.R.C.P. 12(b) motion to dismiss,
and when denied, maybe then, they will finally answer the factual allegations.
19
REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO AMEND PETITION
Case 1:21-cv-02306-RM-KLM Document 46 Filed 03/24/22 USDC Colorado Page 19 of 21
SUMMARY CONCLUSION
Petitioner requests only declaratory judgment and injunctive relief of continuing
violations of his constitutional right to be in public places and conduct activities of daily
living. Petitioner provided numerous citations of law and case precedents to support his
claims for relief; supported by factual allegations that are indisputable because they are
a matter of public record. It is obvious that City Defendants do not want to answer the
factual allegations. If City Defendants are wary about answering to the allegations of
criminal misconduct, they can always plead 5th Amendment protection.
Counsel for City Defendants did not support the conclusory assertion that the
additional factual allegations and amendments to Plaintiff's Proposed Second Amended
Petition for Relief still fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, and has
not supported the conclusory assertion that such further amendment to the Petition for
Relief is futile and dilatory.
Plaintiff respectfully requests that this Court grant his Motion to Amend Petition
for Relief, and grant such further and other relief as provided by law.
Dated this March 23rd, 2022
Signed as per C.R.S. 4-3-402
Robert-Lawrence: Perry, Man for: sis 'Robert-Lawrence: 'Perry • .Jvlan
ROBERT LAWRENCE PERRY, Person
REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO AMEND PETITION
20
Case 1:21-cv-02306-RM-KLM Document 46 Filed 03/24/22 USDC Colorado Page 20 of 21
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I, Robert-Lawrence: Perry, Plaintiff, hereby certify that I sent a complete, correct
and true copy of the foregoing Reply in Support of Motion to Amend Petition for Relief
and addressed to each Attorney of Record for all Defendants by first-class U.S. Mail,
postage pre-paid, an·dlor by emailing documents, such as agreed by informed and prior
consent to the following:
Attorneys for Defendants,
The City of Fort Collins, et al.
Darin Atteberry, City Manager
300 La Porte Ave., (City Hall)
Fort Collins, CO 80522
Phone: (970) 221-6520
hoffmank@hallevans.com
ratnerm@hallevans.com
The State of Colorado, et. al.
for: Steven Vasconcellos
1300 Broadway, 10th Floor
Denver, Colorado 80203
Phone: (720) 508-6000
Carman.VanPelt@coag.gov
Dated the 23rd day of March 2022
Signed pursuant to C.R.S. 4-3-402 by,
Robert-Lawrence: Perry, Trustee for:
4786 McMurry Ave., Unit 242
Fort Collins, Colorado 80525
fort_ scout@yahoo.com
Phone: (970) 980-1849
Colorado State University, et, al.
Attn.: Jannine Mohr, Attorney
1300 Broadway, 10th Floor
Denver, Colorado 80203
Phone: (720) 508-6000
Skip.Spear@coag.gov
Allison.Ailer@coag.gov
CSU Board of Governors, for:
Colorado State University, et al.
555 seventeenth St., Suite 1000
Denver, Colorado 80201
Phone: (970) 491-6425
Denise. Mu nger@coag.gov
Isl Robert-Lawrence: Perry, :.Man
ROBERT LAWRENCE PERRY, Person
NOTE: CHANGE OF ADDRESS
REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO AMEND PETITION
21
Case 1:21-cv-02306-RM-KLM Document 46 Filed 03/24/22 USDC Colorado Page 21 of 21