The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2016CV31096 - CITY OF FORT COLLINS, A COLORADO MUNICIPAL CORPORATION; AND POUDRE FIRE AUTHORITY, A COLORADO PUBLIC ENTITY V. KEITH GILMARTIN - 006 - ANSWER AND COUNTERCLAIM TO COMPLAINTLsrirnerCountyJusticeCenter 2OILaPorte Avenue Fort Collins, [O8O521 9704943500 Plaintiff: Poudre Fire Authority 2O2RerningtonStreet Fort Collins, CO. 8O52 M Defendant Keith Gilmartin 3316VV.Vine Dr. Fort Collins, [OAQ522 DATE FILED: December l3.20l6 CASE NUMBER: 20l6CV3l096 Answer and Counterclaim to Complaini DEFENDANT, PR{) 5E presents Answer and Counterclaim responding to allegations of Plaintiff- Poudne Fire Authority (Au1hority)COK4PLA|NTcaptioned above. DEFENDANT answers in numbered sync to Plaintiff's claims. Plaintiff's allegations and Defendant's answer, in aurnrnary, is surmised to arise out of dispute as to extent 'rights in the subject easenoent' centering about the phrase inthe Deed mfEasernent —"ahghtofvvayfor access" OEP|aint�Ps he` #7and Exhibit 8-Deedmf Easement) Annotating, as there is a commonality ofleadership with the City of Fort Collins and the Authority Defendant will go on record as to it belief that basis of this Complaint lie in a malicious and vexatious attempt to obtain fee simple privileges. Defendant's summarizing tightly extols this process asafine example of"the camel's nose" Authority makes claim for transgression for an Easement that was owned by City of Fort Collins. Defendant addresses ,asAuthority's claim, for conveniences but does not relinquish any rights. 1& 2 Defendant admits the aUeg8tion(s). 3&4. Defendant neither admits nor denies the aUegation(s), 5. Defendant denies the a||egation/sL 6. Defendant denies the aUegation(d. Denial basis in misrepresentation; Characterization of "Training [enter" true in name but one use, not "the whole truth". Original intent was touted as a "training" center" , which is present but the facility has become the harbor for various other categories —ofuse with consequential burdening ofthe easement. One issue for the Counter claim and Cross Claim. Defendants Exhibit'1' 7. Defendant admits the allegationji D. Defendant denies the aUegadon(s) Denial basis • Easement isNOT the ONLY access oregress available for use tothe facility, • Plaintiffs Exhibit C characterization of "approximation" in conjunction with Easement, leaves facts astocause for characterization absent. 9. Defendant denies the aUegadon(s). Insufficient facts available up to filing to confirm the legitimacy of process for the creation of said |GA in October2O1G. Issue present to give Defendant cause for, at best, a cause 'error in creation process' by 10. Defendant denies the aUegation/si Insufficient facts available upon filing to confirm allegation for definitions and consequential extent, breath, depth. As bases in Counterclaim Plaintiff has NO 'BASIS IN RIGHT 'TO MAKE ANY claims enumerated. 10(a). Defendant denies theaUegaLionb\. Chain and lock had/has historic use for limiting traffic to ONLY ditch rider. Authority's claim for use is outside of rights and permission. Issue emanates from Lock being cut. Only two parties had keys Gate was totally onDefendants property. (Def8ndant'sExhibit 2pg 2)-(Nwte:boundary pin) LCS[)stated location ofgate such a likely hood, asto, inreport PFApersonne| not cited for conceivable criminal violations. A basis for Counterclaim and Cross Claim .Defendantnot cited byL{IO 10(b). Defendant denies the aUegation/si Denial in basis: LCSOreport states "| told KE|THhehad th Degree ofPlaintiff's and L[SOrebuke based one side information. Only two complaints'? How many vehicles attending the days event. 21Pa�e 3&4. Defendant neither admits nor denies the allegation(s). 5. Defendant denies the aUegotion(s). 6. Defendant denies the aUegation(s). Denial basis inmisrepresentation; Characterization of"Training Center" true inname but one use, not "the whole truth" Original intent was touted as a "training" center" , which is present but the facility has become the harbor for various other categories ofuse with consequential burdening ofthe easement. One issue for the Counter claim and Cross Claim. Defendants Exhibit T 7. Defendant admits the allegation(A 8. Defendant denies the aUegadmn(s). Denial basis • Easement is NOT the ONLY access or egress available for use to the facility. w Plaintiff's Exhibit[ characterization of "approximation" inconjunction with Easement, leaves facts astocause for characterization absent. 9. Defendant denies the aUegation(s). Insufficient facts available up to filing to confirm the legitimacy of process for the creation ofsaid |GAinOctober 2O16. Issue present to give Defendant cause for, at best, a cause 'error in creation process' by 10, Defendant denies the a|ieg@tiOn(S). Insufficient facts available upon filing to confirm allegation for definitions and consequendal extent breath, depth. As bases in Counterclaim Plaintiff has NO 'BASIS IN RIGHT'TO MAKE ANY claims enumerated. 10(a). Defendant denies theaUegatiun(s). Chain and lock had/has historic use for limiting traffic to ONLY ditch rider, Authority's claim for use is outside of rights and permission. Issue emanates from Lock being cut. Only two parties had keys Gate was totally onDefendants property. /Defendant,s Exhibit 2pg 2\-(0o1e:boundary pin) L[S[) stated location of gate such a likely hood, as to, in report PFApersonnel not cited for conceivable criminal violations. A basis for Counterclaim and Cross Claim .Defendant not cited byLCSO lQ(b). Defendant denies the aUegation(s), Denial in basis: LCSOreport states "| told KBTHhehad th Degree ofPlaintiff's and L[S(]rebuke based one side information. ��--- Only two cmnnp|aints7Flow many vehicles attending the days event. 2|Pa�e No citation. 10(c). Defendant denies the3||egatiOn(S). Denials basis; PF4/Landscaping Co. encroaching. Amicable ending. No citation. Any facts prior to ending subject to cross examination. 10(d) Defendant denies theaUegadon(s). Denial bases on lack of corroborating details, especially in consideration of the FEDERAL nature ofevent. lU(e) Defendant denies the aUegation/s\. Denied basis, for vagueness to determine validity OR likely hood, Driveway is25ftwide and easement is7Oftwide. Moving poles in 30 feet per side results in planting offence posts within the bounds of the concrete road base Hard making post holes thru! See Plaintiffs Exhibit C./Eamernent survey page.). For bounds running north and south would place them across the "road". Also within the bounds ofthe concrete road. Additionally neither The City of Fort Collins nor POUDRE FIRE ever placed fence posts bounding the easement. 10(O Defendant denies theaUegation/si Denied for extreme situational vagueness for ability to determine validity 20(u) Defendant denies theaUegetion/s\. Denied for extreme vagueness for an ability to determine validity. On 'Authority property oreasement? ;an NO law enforcement? lO/h\ Defendant denies theaUegation(s). Basis for lack ofdairhv. Was all three gestures done toeach driver inturn orwere gestures varied with varying drivers. lO(i) Defendant denies aUegation(3), Denied for MAJOR incongruity between Plaintiffs claim and that in Plaintiff's Exhibit 'I' to determine validity. Related citation dismissed. IOk\ Defendant denies theaUegadonb\. The related citation was dismissed. Plethora of incongruities contained within reports. Basis for Counterclaim and Cross Claim within the issue. 10(k) Defendant denies thea||egahon<s\. Basis in vagueness. 3|Pa�e 10(d. Defendant denies theaUegahon(s). Denials basis; PF4/Landscaping Co. encroaching. Annicab|e ending. No citation. Any facts prior to ending subject to cross examination. 10(d) Defendant denies the@Uegatign/s\. Denial bases on lack of corroborating details, especially in consideration of the FEDERAL nature ofevent. 10(e) Defendant denies the aUegation(s). Denied basis, for vagueness Todetermine validity ORlikely hood, Driveway is25ftwide and easement is7Oftwide. Moving poles in 30 feet per side results in planting of fence posts within the bounds of the concrete road base Hard making post holes thru! See Plaintiffs Exhibit C.(Easernent survey page,). For bounds running north and south would place them across the "road" Also within the bounds ofthe concrete road. Additionally neither The City of Fort Collins nor POUDRE FIRE ever placed fence posts bounding the easement. 10(f) Defendant denies theaUegadon(s). Denied for extreme situational vagueness for ability to determine validity 10/g\ Defendant denies theaUegadunb\. Denied for extreme vagueness for an ability to determine validity. On 'Authority property oreasement? ;an NO law enforcement? IO/h\ Defendant denies th£aUeg@tiQn(5). Basis for lack ofdairhv. Was all three gestures done toeach driver inturn orwere gestures varied with varying drivers. lO/i\ Defendant denies d|egation(s). Denied for MAJOR incongruity between Plaintiff's claim and that in Plaintiff's Exhibit '/'to determine validity. Related citation dismissed. 10U\ Defendant denies theaUeQation/si The related citation was dismissed. Plethora of incongruities contained within reports. Basis for Counterclaim and Cross Claim within the issue. lU/k\ Defendant denies theJllegation(S), Basis invagueness. 3|Pa�e 10(U Defendant denies theaUegadon(S). Basis invagueness, 10(nn) Defendant denies theaUegadVn/si The related citation was dismissed. plethora of incongruities contained within reports. Basis for Counterclaim within issue. 20(n) Defendant denies theaUego1ion(s). Basis in lack of validity for Plaintiff's claim in Defendant's purpose and perceived authority, for right toclaim ,transgressions. Abasis for Counterclaim if forced to pay for removal issue is with Easement owner at the time; City of Ft Collins 10/o\ Defendant denies theaUegation(s). Defendant denial for blatantly false allegation for Plaintiffs claim ; Thus voiding claim for consequences. Compare essence VfPlaintiff's claim with Defendant's Exhibit 3). Null Plaintiff's basis related to "U Turn" admitted as being on Defendants property. Basis for Counterclaim 11 Defendant denies theaUegatioo(s). Basis in vagueness or lack of information to determine validity Plaintiff Claims counter asevidence for impingement onDefendant's rights including Constitutional rights. Asdiscussed inExhibit Fphotography isnoagainst the law. Potential grounds for Cross claim 12 Defendant can neither admit nor deny the aUegation(s). Denial basis in poignant apparent presumption of Authority that "ongoing actions that are intended to prevent or discourage Authority from using the easement" that ARE WITHIN Autho/it/srights.Assunnptionhy Authority aserroneous belief and subsequent action are basis inCounterclaim. 13a Defendant denies theaUege1ion(s). Basis is in blatant falsehood,. There is no history, no/presendy existing ANY signs 'within the Easement;" ( Defendant Exhibit 4) 12b Defendant can neither admit ordeny the aUegadon(s). Basis in lack ofinformation astowho, City nrAuthority is paying the cost; Ownership nfthe easement rights was sold tothe City ofFtCollins and conditioned in DEED was maintenance. I2c Defendant emphatically denies the aUegatimn<s\. City ofFort Collins and subsequently 'Authorit»s belief asexpressed isbasis wfall issues and basis inCounterclaim. 4|oa�e 10(l} Defendant denies theoUegodmn(s). 10(nn) Defendant denies theaUegation(s). The related citation was dismissed. plethora ofincongruities contained within reports. Basis for Counterclaim within issue. 10(n) Defendant denies theaUegadon(s). Basis in lack of validity for Plaintiff's claim in Defendant's purpose and perceived authority, for right to claim ,transgressions. Abasis for Counterclaim if forced to pay for removal issue is with Easement owner at the time; City of Ft Collins 20/n> Defendant denies LheaUegation(s). Defendant denial for blatantly false allegation for Plaintiff's claim ; Thus voiding claim for consequences. Compare essence ofPlaintiff's claim with Defendant's Exhibit 3\. Null P|ainhff'sbasisre|atedto"UTu/n"adnnittedasbeingonDehendantspruperty. Basis for Counterclaim 11 Defendant denies LheaUegation(s). Basis in vagueness or lack ofinformation to determine validity Plaintiff Claims counter asevidence for impingement onDefendant's rights including Constitutional rights. Asdiscussed inExhibit Fphotography isnoagainst the law. Potential grounds for Cross claim 12 Defendant can neither admit nor deny theaUegotion(s). Denial basis inpoignant apparent presumption ofAuthority that "ongoing actions that are intended to prevent or discourage Authority from using the easement" that ARE WITHIN Authority's rights. Assumption by Authority as erroneous belief and subsequent action are basis in Counterclaim. 12a Defendant denies theaUegation(d. ` Basis isin blatant falsehood,. There is no history, nor presently existing ANY signs 'within the Easement;" / Defendant Exhibit 4\ 12b Defendant can neither admit ordeny the aUegation(s). Basis in lack of information as to who, City or Authority is paying the cost; Ownership of the easement rights was sold to the City ofFtCollins and conditioned in DEED was maintenance. 12c Defendant emphatically denies the aUegation(s). City ofFort Collins and subsequently 'Authoritvs belief esexpressed isbasis ofall issues and basis in Counterclaim. 41Page LU\� DISTRICT COURT, LARIMER COUNTY, COLORADO Larimer County Justice Center 201 La Porte Avenue Fort Collins, CO 80521 9704943500 Poudre Fire Authority 1102 Remington Street Fort Collins, CO. 8052 V. A COURT USE ONLY A Party Pro Se: Case No.: Defendant 2016 CV 31096 Keith Gilmartin 3316 W. Vine Dr. Fort Collins, CO 80521 Court room: Certificate of Malifin" I certify that on December /,-,3 2016 a copy of Answer and Counter Claim was provide to Plaintiff via U.S. Postal Service, first class mail, postage prepaid and addressed as follows: |RELAND,STAPLET0N,PRY{)R &7PASCOE, PC 717 17St/eet Suite28O0 Denver, Colorado 8O2O2 Subnnit1ted December 2016 Keith Gilmartin 71Pa�e