UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE ... - Halifax Legal LLC

Case 1:11-cv-01942-RPM Document 1 Filed 07/27/11 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 106 

Civil Action No. __________________ 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO 

BARTON ARBUTHNOT, 

BLENDA ARBUTHNOT, 

BLAINE ARBUTHNOT, 

PAMELA ARBUTHNOT, 

LYNN CHUBBUCK, 

AMBER DECKER, 

JULIE DECKER, 

KAREN DIETRICH, 

MICHAEL DIETRICH, 

DOROTHY MASON, 

C.D., a minor, by and through her parents and next of friends, 

v. 

Plaintiffs, 

THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF ORDWAY, COLORADO a municipal corporation of the 

State of Colorado, 

THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE LOWER ARKANSAS VALLEY WATER CONSERVANCY 

DISTRICT, a quasi-municipal corporation and political subdivision of the State of Colorado, 

THE BOARD OF EDUCATION OF THE CROWLEY COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT, a body 

corporate and politic, 

THE CROWLEY COUNTY CHILD CARE CENTER, a Colorado non-profit corporation, d/b/a KIDS 

CAMPUS, 

ANNETTE BOONE, an individual, 

ORVAL L. COLLINS a/k/a LAWRENCE O. COLLINS a/k/a LARRY COLLINS, individually, and in 

his official capacity as Trustee of the Town of Ordway, Colorado, 

SCOTT CUCKOW, in his official capacity as Superintendent of the Crowley County School District 

WILLIAM FERRITTO, individually, and in his official capacity as Marshal of the Town of Ordway, 

Colorado, 

TERRI HENDERSON, in her official capacity as the former Treasurer of the Town of Ordway, Colorado; 

PETER MOORE, individually, and in his official capacities as Trustee of the Town of Ordway, Colorado 

and President of the Board of Directors of the Lower Arkansas Valley Water Conservancy District, 

KELLI JO RUSHER, in her official capacity as Mayor of the Town of Ordway, Colorado, 

DAWN SCHECK, an individual, 

CARRIE STEELE-COLLINS a/k/a CARRIE COLLINS a/k/a CARRIE ELEANOR STEELE, 

individually, 

JAY WINNER, in his official capacity as Executive Director of the Lower Arkansas Valley Water 

Conservancy District; 

DOES 1-20, individuals 

Defendants. 

COMPLAINT AND JURY DEMAND


Plaintiffs Barton Arbuthnot, Blenda Arbuthnot, Blaine Arbuthnot, Pamela Arbuthnot 

Lynn Chubbuck, Julie Decker, Karen Dietrich, Dorothy Mason, and C.D., a minor, by and 

through her parents and next of friends, by and through their attorney, Adam M. Platt, of 

HALIFAX LEGAL LLC, respectfully allege for their Complaint as follows: 

I. INTRODUCTION 

1. As against all defendants except the Crowley County Board of Education and its 

Superintendent, Scott Cuckow, this is at essence action for damages for violating the plaintiffs’ 

rights of freedom of speech and association under the First Amendment to the United States 

Constitution through an extensive conspiracy principally located in the Town of Ordway 

(hereinafter, “Ordway” or the “Town”). Plaintiffs seek to enforce their rights under 42 U.S.C. § 

1983 and § 1988 and under the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States 

Constitution. 

2. Plaintiff C.D. also seeks to enforce her rights under both Title II of the Americans 

with Disabilities Act of 1990 (the “ADA”), 42 U.S.C. § 12132, and Section 504 of the 

Rehabilitation Act of 1973, 29 U.S.C. § 794. In addition, certain supplemental state law claims 

are alleged herein. 

2


II. PLAINTIFFS 

3. Plaintiff Barton “Bart” Arbuthnot is an individual who resides in Dumas, Texas. 

Barton Arbuthnot purchased, from the Ordway SCORE Board, a concession trailer that has lately 

become enmeshed in an illegal conspiracy to retaliate against Town Trustee Lynn Chubbuck – 

who is the brother of Barton Arbuthnot’s sister-in-law, Pam Arbuthnot – and who helped prepare 

the then-dilapidated trailer for transport to Texas. Defendants have retaliated and continue to 

retaliate against Barton Arbuthnot on the basis of his familial and business ties to Lynn 

Chubbuck. Barton Arbuthnot is not asserting claims against the Board of Education of the 

Crowley County School District, Superintendent Scott Cuckow, or the Crowley County Child 

Care Center. 

4. Plaintiff Blenda Arbuthnot is an individual who resides in Dumas, Texas. Blenda 

Arbuthnot is married to Bart Arbuthnot and, like her husband, Defendants have retaliated and 

continue to retaliate against Blenda Arbuthnot on the basis of her familial and business ties to 

Lynn Chubbuck. Blenda Arbuthnot is not asserting claims against the Board of Education of the 


Care Center. 

5. Plaintiff Blaine Arbuthnot is an individual who resides in Ordway, Colorado. As 

a member of the SCORE Board from 2005 until 2011 when he was removed by the Trustees, 

Blaine Arbuthnot helped arrange for the sale of the once-dilapidated trailer to his brother Barton 

Arbuthnot. Blaine is also the manager of Chubbuck Motors, a used vehicle dealership owned by 

the Chubbuck family. Defendants have retaliated and continue to retaliate against Blaine 

Arbuthnot on the basis of his familial and business ties to Lynn Chubbuck. Blaine Arbuthnot is 

3


not asserting claims against the Board of Education of the Crowley County School District, 

Superintendent Scott Cuckow, or the Crowley County Child Care Center. 

6. Plaintiff Pamela “Pam” Arbuthnot is an individual who resides in Ordway, 

Colorado. Pamela Arbuthnot, who is the principal of Ordway Elementary School, is married to 

Blaine Arbuthnot and is the sister of Lynn Chubbuck. Defendants have retaliated and continue 

to retaliate against Pam Arbuthnot on the basis of her familial and business ties to Lynn 

Chubbuck. Pamela Arbuthnot is not asserting claims against the Board of Education of the 


Care Center. 

7. Plaintiff Lynn Chubbuck (“Chubbuck”) is an individual who resides in Ordway, 

Colorado. Chubbuck has been a member of the Ordway, Colorado Town Council since 1998 

and was a member of the SCORE Board at the time that the school district demanded that the 

dilapidated trailer be removed from school property. Chubbuck was a member of the SCORE 

Board from its inception in 1988 until 2011 when he was removed by the Trustees. Defendants 

have retaliated and continue to retaliate against Chubbuck based on their perception that he is 

opposed to the proposed $300 million Water Conduit and because he had the temerity to raise 

questions about Defendant Ordway Marshal William Ferritto’s extensively-documented sexual 

harassment of women. Chubbuck is a Senior Locomotive Engineer at the Transportation 

Technology Center in Pueblo, Colorado. Lynn Chubbuck is not asserting claims against the 

Board of Education of the Crowley County School District, Superintendent Scott Cuckow, or the 

Crowley County Child Care Center. 

4


8. Plaintiff Amber Decker is an individual who resides in Crowley County, 

Colorado. Amber Decker is the daughter of Julie Decker. Defendants have retaliated and 

continue to retaliate against Amber Decker on the basis of her familial association with Julie 

Decker, who has been herself discriminated against on the basis of her relationship with 

Chubbuck and Karen Dietrich. Defendants have retaliated and continue to retaliate against 

Amber Decker because of the perception that she has sought to file a complaint pertaining to 

Marshal Ferritto’s repeated inappropriate sexual conduct toward her. Amber Decker is not 

asserting claims against the Board of Education of the Crowley County School District, 


9. Plaintiff Julie Decker is an individual who resides in Crowley County, Colorado. 

Julie Decker is the former Code Enforcement Officer for the Town of Ordway. She worked as 

the Code Enforcement Officer from January 5, 2009 until April 2011. Defendants have 

retaliated and continue to retaliate against Julie Decker and her family on the basis of her 

association with Lynn Chubbuck and Karen Dietrich and because she assisted Chubbuck in 

preparing information to be sent to the District Attorney regarding Ferritto’s harassment. Julie 

Decker is not asserting claims against the Board of Education of the Crowley County School 

District, Superintendent Scott Cuckow, or the Crowley County Child Care Center. 

10. Plaintiff Karen Dietrich (“Dietrich”) is an individual who resides in Olney 

Springs, Colorado. Dietrich was the Town Administrator of the Town of Ordway, Colorado 

from January 2008 to March 11, 2010. Defendants have retaliated and continue to retaliate 

against Karen Dietrich on the basis of her opposition to the $300 million Water Conduit 

proposed by the Lower Arkansas Valley Water Conservancy District, which has particularly firm 

5


support from the LAVWCD General Manager Jay Winner and Board President (and Ordway 

Trustee) Peter Moore. Karen Dietrich is not directly asserting claims against the Board of 

Education of the Crowley County School District or Superintendent Scott Cuckow. 

11. Plaintiff Michael Dietrich is an individual who resides in Olney Springs, 

Colorado. Michael is married to Karen Dietrich. 1 Defendants have retaliated and continue to 

retaliate against Michael Dietrich on the basis of his familial ties with Karen Dietrich. Michael 

Dietrich is not directly asserting claims against the Board of Education of the Crowley County 

School District or Superintendent Scott Cuckow. 

12. Plaintiff Dorothy Mason (“Mason”) is an individual who resides in Ordway, 

Colorado. Mason was the Assistant to the Treasurer of the Town of Ordway from November 17, 

2009 through May 2011. Defendants have retaliated and continue to retaliate against Mason and 

her family on the basis of her association with Chubbuck and Dietrich. Dorothy Mason is not 

asserting claims against the Board of Education of the Crowley County School District, 


13. Plaintiff C.D., a minor, by and through her parents and next of friends Karen and 

Michael Dietrich. C.D. asserts claims against the Board of Education for the Crowley County 

School District, Scott Cuckow, Dawn Scheck, and the Crowley County Child Care Center. 

1 For the sake of convenience, because Karen Dietrich is referenced far more frequently than 

Michael Dietrich in this complaint, she is referenced throughout this complaint as “Dietrich.” Michael Dietrich is 

addressed as “Michael Dietrich.” 

6


III. DEFENDANTS 

14. Defendant Board of Trustees of the Town of Ordway (“Trustees”) is a municipal 

body that governs the geographical area known as Ordway, Colorado. The Trustees were and 

continue to be an active participant in the Conspiracy described herein. 

15. Defendant Board of Directors of the Lower Arkansas Valley Water Conservancy 

District (hereinafter, “LAVWCD” or “the District”) is the governing body of the Quasi- 

municipal Corporation and political subdivision of the State of Colorado, which water district 

includes Bent, Crowley, Otero, Prowers and Pueblo Counties. LAVWCD was and continues to 

be an active participant in the Conspiracy described herein. 

16. Defendant Peter Moore (“Moore”) is a Trustee of the Town of Ordway, Colorado 

and is the President of the Board of Directors of LAVWCD. Prior to his election to the Town 

Board in April 2010, Moore had been on the Board from June 10, 2002 to April 2004 when his 

wife was elected as a Trustee and subsequently appointed Mayor. Moore has been on the Board 

of Directors of LAVWCD since its inception in 2002 and became President on January 21, 2009. 

As an Ordway Trustee, he is empowered to execute the duties of his office and is obligated to 

respect the constitutional rights of the citizens of Ordway. He is also empowered as President of 

the Board of Directors of LAVWCD to execute the duties of his office and is obligated to respect 

the constitutional rights of the citizens of the five county area comprising the District. Moore 

was and continues to be an active participant in the Conspiracy described herein. 

17. Defendant Jay Winner (“Winner”) is the General Manager of LAVWCD and has 

been since 2002. Winner was and continues to be an active participant in the Conspiracy 

described herein. 

7


18. Defendant Orval L. Collins a/k/a Lawrence Collins a/k/a Larry Collins (“Collins”) 

is a Trustee of the Town of Ordway, Colorado and was appointed so on March 5, 2007. As an 

Ordway Trustee, he is empowered to execute the duties of his office and is obligated to respect 

the constitutional rights of the citizens of Ordway. Collins was and continues to be an active 

participant in the Conspiracy described herein. 

19. Defendant Carrie Steele-Collins a/k/a Carrie Collins a/k/a Carrie Eleanor Steele 

(“Steele-Collins”) is the Transportation Coordinator for the Crowley County School District. 

Steele-Collins is married to Collins and resides in Ordway, Colorado. Steele-Collins was and 

continues to be an active participant in the Conspiracy described herein. 

20. Defendant William Ferritto (“Ferritto”) is the Marshal for the Town of Ordway, 

Colorado. Ferritto was hired as Marshal on October 31, 2009. As the Ordway Marshal, he is 

empowered to execute the duties of his position and is obligated to respect the constitutional 

rights of the citizens of Ordway. Ferritto was and continues to be an active participant in the 

Conspiracy described herein. 

21. Defendant Annette Boone (“Boone”) is an individual living in Ordway, Colorado. 

Boone is currently employed by Crowley County Child Care Center d/b/a Kids Campus (“Kids 

Campus”) as a paraprofessional. She was employed by the facility while C.D. attended day care 

there and at all times relevant to this complaint. Plaintiffs allege that Boone disclosed highly 

personal and confidential information regarding C. D. and the Dietrichs gained during her 

employment at Kids Campus. Boone was and continues to be an active participant in the 

Conspiracy described herein. 

8


22. Defendant Crowley County Child Care Center d/b/a Kids Campus (“Kids 

Campus”) is a day care facility located in Ordway, Colorado. During all times relevant to this 

Complaint, C.D. was enrolled at Kids Campus, where she was cared for by Defendant Annette 

Boone, a Kids Campus employee. Kids Campus is not alleged to have been a participant in the 

Conspiracy alleged herein. 

23. Defendant Terri Henderson (“Henderson”) is the former Treasurer of the Town of 

Ordway, Colorado. Henderson was Treasurer from August 2, 2010 until her resignation in June 

2011. Henderson was and continues to be an active participant in the Conspiracy described 

herein. 

24. Defendant Kelli Jo Rusher (“Rusher”) is the current Mayor of the Town of 

Ordway, Colorado. Rusher was elected to the Town Council on April 7, 2009 and resigned in 

October 2009. She was later re-appointed to the Town Council in October 2010 and was 

subsequently appointed Mayor on May 10, 2011. Rusher was and continues to be an active 

participant in the Conspiracy described herein. 

25. Defendant Dawn Scheck (“Scheck”) is an individual living, upon information and 

belief, in West Plains, Missouri, where she recently moved from Ordway, Colorado. Scheck was 

and continues to be an active participant in the Conspiracy described herein. 

26. Defendant Board of Education for the Crowley County School District Board, in 

its official capacity, has the obligation to protect students within the school district from 

harassment at the hands of its employees. The Board of Education’s members are President 

Patricia Florez, Board Vice President Kay Markus, Board Secretary Daryl Geringer, Board 

9


Treasurer Leif Berg, Board Member William Gray, and Board Member Orlando Terrones. The 

Board of Education is not alleged to have been a participant in the Conspiracy alleged herein. 

27. Defendant Scott Cuckow (“Cuckow”) has been the Superintendent for the 

Crowley County School District since July 2010 and is also the principal of Ward Middle 

School. Superintendent Cuckow, in his official capacity, has the responsibility to protect 

students from harassment by school district employees. Following an incident with C.D. and 

Carrie Steele-Collins on the school bus, Karen and Michael Dietrich sought the help of 

Superintendent Cuckow to put a stop to Steele-Collins’ inappropriate conduct. 2 Cuckow initially 

supported the Dietrichs but eventually alleged that the Dietrichs’ complaint originated from a 

sour relationship between Steele-Collins and Karen Dietrich and that the children attesting to the 

actions of Steele-Collins were lying. Cuckow subsequently failed to take steps to prevent 

continued contact between C.D. and Steele-Collins. Cuckow is not alleged to have been a 

participant in the Conspiracy alleged herein. 

28. Defendant DOES 1-20, are individuals residing in the State of Colorado. The 

Does were and continue to be active participants in the Conspiracy described herein. 

29. At all times pertinent to this action, each Defendant was acting under color of 

state law, with power vested in such Defendant by the State of Colorado, the Town of Ordway, 

the Lower Arkansas Valley Water Conservancy District, and the Crowley County School District 

as well as the ordinances, policies, and practices of each Defendant. At all times pertinent to this 

2 For the reader’s convenience, Defendant Board of Education of the Crowley County School 

District and Defendant Superintendent Scott Cuckow, who is named solely in his official capacity, are referenced 

throughout this Complaint by the collective term abbreviation “CCSD.” 

10


action, each Defendant was acting pursuant to the informal and formal policies and informal and 

formal practices of the Town of Ordway and the Lower Arkansas Valley Water Conservancy 

District. 

30. At all times relevant to this Complaint, Defendants Crowley County Child Care 

Center, Annette Boone, Carrie Steele-Collins, and Dawn Scheck’s actions were fairly 

attributable to the state, as each acted under color of law by: (1) acting as instruments or agents 

of the Town and/or LAVWCD and abusing their position, power, or authority related thereto; 

and (2) willfully participating and conspiring in joint action with the Town and/or LAVWCD 

through actions intended to deprive Plaintiffs of their constitutional rights. 

31. As a result, all acts were performed under color of state law and constitute state 

action within the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment. 

IV. JURISDICTION AND VENUE 

32. Original jurisdiction is proper in this Court under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and § 1988, 

28 U.S.C. § 1331 and § 1343(a)(3)-(4), and under the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the 

United States Constitution. This court has supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims 

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a) because they are so related to the federal claims that they form 

part of the same case or controversy. Each state law claim arises out of the conduct, transactions, 

or occurrences set out in this complaint. 

33. This Court has personal jurisdiction over the Defendants because, with the 

exception of Scheck, they all reside within the State of Colorado, and all of the occurrences 

giving rise to this complaint occurred within the state. 

34. Venue is proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b). 

11


V. ALLEGATIONS PERTAINING TO WATER 

The 1980 Water Contract 

35. On January 31, 1980, the Town of Ordway entered into a water distribution and 

allocation contract (hereinafter, the “1980 Contract” or “1980 Water Contract”) with Crowley 

County, Colorado (the “County”), the Crowley County Water Association, Inc. (“CCWA”), the 

96 Pipeline Company, Inc. and the Town of Crowley. 

36. The 1980 Contract provided that Ordway would contribute the large majority of 

the non Fryingpan-Arkansas Project water to be circulated through the distribution system that 

Crowley County intended to construct throughout the County, which the CCWA – a private 

water enterprise – was to operate. The Town of Crowley, which had only a fraction of Ordway’s 

water assets, would provide the remainder. 

The Dietrichs Move to Colorado; Karen Becomes a Reporter 

37. In 2005, Karen and Michael Dietrich moved their family to Olney Springs, 

Colorado from California. Although Dietrich had attended law school in California, she did not 

intend to practice law in Colorado, resolving instead to stay home and continue to homeschool 

her children. 

38. Upon arrival in Colorado, Michael Dietrich was unable to immediately obtain a 

position as a corrections officer; therefore Karen Dietrich accepted a reporter position with the 

La Junta Tribune-Democrat in which she was to focus on water issues in the Lower Arkansas 

Valley. Dietrich was already well versed in the legal and technical aspects of water law as a 

result of her experience navigating California’s similarly-complex water regime. 

12


39. As a reporter covering water issues throughout the Lower Arkansas Valley, 

Dietrich gained an extensive understanding of the legal and technical aspects of water allocation 

and distribution while developing relationships with the public and private officials responsible 

for the water systems. 

LAVWCD’s Winner and Moore Approach Karen Dietrich and the Town of Ordway 

40. During her time as a reporter, Karen Dietrich impressed local officials through her 

familiarity with the complex legal and technical aspects of water rights. 

41. In 2007, aware of the restrictions the 1980 Contract was imposing on Ordway’s 

ability to profit from its extensive water resources, LAVWCD General Manager Jay Winner and 

Director Peter Moore approached Dietrich and proposed that she assist Ordway in renegotiating 

the 1980 Contract. Winner and Moore represented to Dietrich that they believed Ordway had 

gotten a raw deal on the contract and needed someone with her background and skills to wrest 

back its valuable water assets. 

42. Around the same time, Winner and Moore approached Ordway Trustees Larry 

Collins and Lynn Chubbuck as well as Ordway Mayor Randy Haynes with the same evaluation 

of the 1980 Contract and suggested they consider hiring Dietrich to help them renegotiate the 

1980 Contract. 

43. Acting on this suggestion in December 2007, Collins and Chubbuck approached 

Dietrich during an Ordway Town Council meeting she was covering for the La Junta newspaper. 

Collins and Chubbuck told her Ordway needed her help and asked whether she would accept a 

Town Administrator position if Ordway were to create one for her. 

13


44. The Town Council subsequently discussed and approved Ordway Ordinance No. 

485 on January 10, 2008, which retroactively set her start date as January 1, 2008. The 

ordinance created the Town Administrator position and granted it broad authority to manage the 

Town’s affairs. At the same meeting, the Trustees offered Dietrich the administrator position, 

which she immediately accepted. 

Dietrich as Town Administrator 

45. When Dietrich began as Town Administrator on January 1, 2008, she 

immediately sought to bring order to a disorganized Town Hall and, in consultation with the 

Mayor and Trustees, began developing a strategy for renegotiating the 1980 Contract with the 

County. 

46. Early in her tenure, Dietrich enjoyed the support of the Trustees – including 

Defendant Larry Collins – as well as LAVWCD’s leadership, most notably Winner and Moore. 

The Lead up to Litigation with the County 

47. Less than a month after starting as Town Administrator, Karen Dietrich began 

addressing the issue for which she was hired – recapturing the Town’s significant water assets 

from County control. 

48. On February 1, 2008, Karen Dietrich sent a letter to the County Commissioners 

on behalf of the Town of Ordway. The letter, which had been approved by the Trustees, 

addressed issues raised during a meeting on January 28, 2008 between the Board of Trustees and 

the County Commissioners. In the letter, Dietrich formally requested – on behalf of the Town – 

that the County agree to release or pay fair market value for the 67 shares of Twin Lakes water 

that the County had reserved for 2008, pursuant to the 1980 Water Contract. 

14


49. The County was unreceptive to Dietrich’s suggestion. In a March 10, 2008 letter, 

County Attorney Mark MacDonnell disputed the Town’s interpretation of the 1980 Contract and 

countered that, in fact, the Town was in breach of the contract. MacDonnell stated that Ordway 

owed the County approximately $115,000 because Ordway had failed to buy enough water back 

from the County. 

the County. 

50. After that initial correspondence, tensions rapidly increased between Ordway and 

51. On April 3, 2008, Ordway’s water attorney – David Taussig of White & 

Jankowski – provided a legal opinion in which he referred to the 1980 Contract as the most one- 

sided water contract he had ever seen. Taussig further noted that “[i]n its most simplistic form, 

the Town turned over its water rights to the County and then agreed to buy water back.” 

52. In addition, Ordway, under Dietrich’s direction, commissioned a water study by 

GMS Engineering. That report, published in September 2008, stated unequivocally that Ordway 

had more than enough water to satisfy the County system’s users while still having enough water 

to enter into long-term leases that would provide significant income for the chronically-broke 

Town of Ordway. 

53. Throughout this time, Dietrich enjoyed the support of the Trustees, who endorsed 

the increasingly hard line that Ordway took toward the County with regard to the 1980 Contract. 

15


Dietrich and Chubbuck Begin to Question the Town’s Participation in the LAVWCD Conduit 

54. By mid- to late-2008, Dietrich and Chubbuck had begun to question the wisdom 

of the Town’s participation in the Water Conduit proposed by the Southeastern Colorado Water 

Conservancy District (as part of the Fryingpan-Arkansas Water Project) but pushed by 

LAVWCD. The Conduit was intended to provide a direct and clean portal to transport water 

from Twin Lakes into the Lower Arkansas Valley without suffering the dissipation and pollution 

associated with transport through the Arkansas River. But, Conduit organizers required towns 

and municipalities that intended to utilize the Conduit to make significant financial contributions 

to support the engineering and environmental studies required before construction could even be 

considered. 

55. For Ordway, the annual levy represented a significant cost. Having studied the 

issue, Dietrich posited that the Town could assure itself an adequate supply of water for 

municipal use by mixing its Twin Lakes water, transported through and drawn from the 

Arkansas River, with water from the Town’s Faw Wells source and then filtering the combined 

water through a reverse osmosis unit. As was later confirmed by the 2008 GMS Engineering 

report, Dietrich believed that, through this method, the Town could assure its citizens quality 

drinking water while realizing significant cost savings as compared to participating in the 

Conduit project. 

56. While Chubbuck did not advocate completely renouncing the Conduit, he 

believed that Dietrich’s idea had merit and was worth pursuing. 

57. By late 2008, the Trustees of cash-strapped Ordway per Dietrich’s advice began 

withholding payment of the assessments requested by Conduit organizers. This did not sit well 

16


with either Peter Moore, a LAVWCD Director, or his wife Nancy Moore, who had been 

Ordway’s Mayor and who was a strong supporter of the Conduit. In addition to strongly 

disagreeing with Dietrich’s opposition to Ordway’s participation in the Conduit, Nancy Moore 

also strongly resented Dietrich’s public questioning of the manner in which Nancy Moore had 

administered the Town while Mayor from 2004 to 2006, when she resigned. 

The Letter that Broke the Camel’s Back 

58. The turning point in both Ordway’s relationship with the County and Dietrich’s 

relationship with LAVWCD came on March 30, 2009 when Ordway Mayor Randy Haynes 

signed a letter, drafted by Dietrich, to the Crowley County Commissioners in which he made it 

clear that the Town would no longer consent to County control over its Twin Lakes water shares: 

We are planning to enter into long-term lease agreements with 300 

of our shares and keep the remaining 145.4 shares for our own use. 

If the Crowley County Commissioners are interested in a longterm 

lease, we would appreciate your expressed interested within 

ten days. We can then discuss the terms presently being negotiated 

with other entities at that time. If we don’t hear from you within 

ten days, we will assume you are not interested in the water and we 

will move forward with our leasing. 

March 30, 2009 Letter from Mayor Randal Haynes to Crowley County Commissioners. 

59. At the time, the Trustees believed that LAVWCD was willing to lease all 300 

shares on a short or long-term basis. 

17


The County Sues 

60. As the Trustees anticipated, the County initiated litigation in response. On April 

23, 2009, the County and the other parties to the 1980 Contract filed suit in Crowley County 

District Court. See Board of County Commissioners of the County of Crowley, Colorado; Town 

of Crowley; Crowley County Water Association, Inc.; and 96 Pipeline Company, Inc. v. Town of 

Ordway (Crowley County. Dist. Ct. No. 2009-CV-22). 

61. The suit alleged that Haynes’ March 30, 2009 letter constituted an anticipatory 

repudiation of the 1980 Contract and sought a declaratory judgment declaring the 1980 Contract 

to be binding on all parties. The County and its allies also requested that the court issue an 

injunction prohibiting Ordway from leasing its water to anyone else and ordering Ordway to 

specifically perform what the plaintiffs alleged were its contractual duties. 

LAVWCD Does an About-Face 

62. Haynes’ letter also raised the ire of LAVWCD, which, on information and belief, 

was not upset that Ordway wanted out of the 1980 Contract, a result it had indeed proposed but 

that the Town intended to lease nearly three-quarters of its Twin Lakes water shares on a long- 

term basis to the highest bidder. 

63. Because LAVWCD wanted, and indeed needed, Ordway’s significant Twin Lakes 

water assets in order to justify the cost of constructing its long-planned $300 million Conduit. 

LAVWCD was, on information and belief, alarmed over the possibility that the Town’s shares 

might imminently become encumbered via a long-term lease to a third party. LAVWCD, which 

had initially supported and arguably instigated Ordway’s steps toward autonomy, now 

understood that the water shares that it had expected Ordway to offer exclusively to it at a 

18


reduced price were being shopped to third parties with the intent of leasing unless the District 

was willing to pay fair market value for the shares. 

64. In an effort to ensure that LAVWCD’s interests would not be impaired by the 

litigation between Ordway and the County, Jay Winner sought to interject himself into the 

dispute. Winner attended a May 4, 2009 Ordway Town Council meeting and offered himself as 

an intermediary between the Town and the County. Winner further suggested that Trustees 

Collins and Chubbuck – and, by implication, not Dietrich or Mayor Randy Haynes – be the ones 

to negotiate with the County. 

65. The Trustees’ subsequent refusal of his assistance angered Winner. 

66. Not yet aware of LAVWCD’s alarm regarding Ordway’s stated intent to offer its 

Twin Lakes shares for long-term lease, the Trustees expected that LAVWCD would again lease, 

on a short-term basis, whatever portion of Ordway’s water shares was not reserved for the year 

by the County. Their expectation was premised upon the fact that LAVWCD had leased all, or 

almost all, of the Town’s available water each year since the water district’s foundation in 2002. 

67. Because of this leasing history, the Trustees relied upon LAVWCD’s lease money 

to fund both Town operations and the lawsuit with the County. 

19


LAVWCD Declines to Lease the Town’s Water 

68. As relations with the County deteriorated especially after litigation began in April 

2009, Dietrich became increasingly concerned about the Town’s ability to pay its bills and 

repeatedly contacted Winner regarding LAVWCD’s leasing plans. Winner repeatedly assured 

Dietrich that LAVWCD would in fact lease the Town’s water but offered a series of excuses as 

to why it could not yet commit. 

69. Finally, on July 6, 2009, after having accepted Winner’s excuses since mid- 

January, Dietrich called Winner in advance of a Trustee meeting and demanded a final answer as 

to whether LAVWCD would lease the Town’s water. Winner responded that LAVWCD would 

not lease the water and informed Dietrich that LAVWCD’s Directors had made that decision on 

June 17, 2009 – nearly three weeks earlier. 

70. No mention of that decision, nor even any discussion of the subject matter, 

appears on the minutes of the LAVWCD Directors’ June 17, 2009 meeting. 

71. According to Winner, the District’s Directors had decided that it should not lease 

Ordway’s shares because of the litigation between the Town and County. However, during that 

July 6, 2009 telephone conversation, Winner did not mention that LAVWCD had agreed to lease 

all of the Town of Crowley’s shares, even though it was also a party to the litigation with the 

County. 

72. While LAVWCD had no obligation to lease Ordway’s water in any given year, 

Winner’s delay in informing the Town deprived it of the opportunity to market the shares 

elsewhere, which resulted in the Town being forced to offer the water to local farmers at less 

than one-tenth of the price that LAVWCD was paying. Without that money, the Town found 

20


itself unable to pay its bills as they came due, which impaired its ability to zealously pursue its 

litigation against the County. 

73. On information and belief, LAVWCD’s decision not to lease Ordway’s water and 

intentional failure to inform the Town of that fact until it was too late for Ordway to lease its 

water to anyone else was designed to: (1) undermine the Town’s litigation against the County 

and (2) punish Chubbuck and Dietrich for their perceived opposition to the Conduit and 

willingness to lease the water to a third party. 

74. Following the notification of LAVWCD’s intent not to lease Ordway’s water 

shares, Chubbuck and Collins attended a monthly LAVWCD board meeting on July 17, 2009 

hoping to improve communication as the Town of Ordway believed it had a contract with 

LAVWCD. After Chubbuck voiced his disappointment during the meeting, Winner pulled him 

aside and explained that he neither appreciated how he handled the situation nor him airing its 

business in public. 

Moore Begins to Publicly Attack Dietrich 

75. Having by then determined that Dietrich was a threat to LAVWCD’s interests, 

both in the sense that she was the driving force behind the Town’s resolution to lease Ordway’s 

surplus water shares to the highest bidder on a long-term basis (rather than merely reserving 

them for LAVWCD) and because she had turned her back on the Conduit project, the once 

supportive Peter and Nancy Moore undertook a public campaign to publicly discredit Dietrich. 

76. Starting at a September 30, 2009 Trustee meeting, Moore began making lengthy 

public statements focused on criticizing Dietrich and on the Trustees’ decision to create a town 

administrator position for her. In addition, Moore submitted a series of Colorado Open Records 

21


Act requests demanding specific employment information concerning Dietrich in the hope that it 

would assist him in his campaign to oust her. 

77. To that end, in subsequent oral statements, Moore addressed the flaws he 

perceived in the ordinance establishing the Town Administrator position and questioned the cost 

and relevance of the Town Administrator’s participation on the Executive Board of the Colorado 

Municipal League (“CML”), although his wife had previously attended meetings while she was 

mayor. 

78. Peter and Nancy Moore conducted their campaign to attack Dietrich in the press 

by submitting repeated letters to the editor questioning Dietrich’s performance as Town 

Administrator. 

79. Moore ultimately announced his intent to run for Trustee in the upcoming April 

2010 elections, premising his campaign in large part upon his plan to fire Dietrich and those 

employees whom he perceived to be supportive of her, telling current employees that they would 

have to reapply for their jobs after the election. 

80. As part of that campaign, Moore, who had been appointed President of the 

LAVWCD Board on January 21, 2009, endeavored to convince Ordway’s citizens that the Town 

was in danger of running out of water as a result of Dietrich and Chubbuck’s intent to lease water 

to a third party and other water-related actions. Winner lent his assistance to the task. 

22


Moore and Winner Hijack Ordway’s Public Forum Regarding Water 

81. Aware of the misperceptions that were spreading like wildfire through the small 

town, the Trustees advertised a March 1, 2010 Town meeting to discuss the Town’s water issues 

and the lawsuit with the County. 

82. On the agenda to speak were Chubbuck and Carl McClure, who is on the Board of 

Directors of the Southeastern Colorado Water Conservancy District and who lives in Olney 

Springs, Colorado. Understanding that Moore’s criticism had made her unpopular in Ordway, 

Dietrich shied away so as not to unnecessarily inflame the public. 

83. The message presented by first Chubbuck and then McClure was that the Town 

had considerable water assets and could comfortably enter into long-term water leases without 

endangering its ability to provide for its own citizens. 

84. With Moore sitting next to him and nodding his agreement, Winner stood up and 

argued that Dietrich’s leasing plan would endanger the Town’s ability to provide water for its 

own citizens. In short, Winner told the crowd that the Town and its consultants had inaccurately 

calculated the Town’s water assets and Ordway did not have enough water to lease on a long- 

term basis. 

23


Dietrich Resigns 

85. Moore never had the opportunity to fulfill his promise to fire Dietrich if elected. 

After weeks of telling Mayor Haynes and the Trustees that the Town was rapidly running out of 

money to pay its bills and proposing that they lay her off in order to save money, Dietrich finally 

succeeded in convincing Haynes to accept her resignation on March 10, 2011. 

86. Haynes, believing that Ordway would rehire Dietrich as soon as its finances 

stabilized, even told her to hold on to her Town-issued laptop so that she could continue to work 

on pursuing grants for the Town. 

VI. ALLEGATIONS PERTAINING TO MARSHAL FERRITTO 

A. Background 

Ferritto Becomes Ordway Town Marshal 

87. Although the Crowley County Sheriff’s Department is based in Ordway and 

patrolled the Town as part of its regular duties, the Trustees and their constituents perceived its 

response times to be unnecessarily slow and criticized its inability or unwillingness to enforce 

Ordway Town Ordinances. 

88. The issue came to a head in late 2009 when Ordway began to experience a 

dramatic increase in vandalism. The Trustees resolved that Ordway needed its own law 

enforcement official and advertised a position for Town Marshal. 

89. As Halloween 2009 approached with no officer hired yet, Dietrich, who had been 

charged with reviewing applications and interviewing candidates, found herself under significant 

pressure to have an officer on patrol prior to a historically vandalism-heavy night. 

90. Despite reservations concerning his employment history, Dietrich recommended 

to the Trustees that William Ferritto, a former Crowley County Deputy Sheriff who had a very 

24


public fallout with that agency, be hired as Ordway’s part-time Town Marshal. Although 

Ferritto was far from a desirable candidate given his past employment history, he was the only 

applicant with prior law enforcement – as opposed to correctional officer – experience. 

91. The Trustees accepted the recommendation and hired Ferritto. 

Ferritto’s Overzealous Policing 

92. While Ferritto succeeded in immediately reducing incidences of vandalism, he 

quickly turned his position into a full-time one and opened investigations into all sorts of only 

questionably criminal occurrences. 

93. Having heard that Town funds had disappeared during the tenure of former Mayor 

Nancy Moore, Ferritto insisted on involving the Colorado Bureau of Investigation (“CBI”). He 

wrote a letter asking the CBI to investigate but asked Dietrich to sign it because he didn’t want to 

be disqualified from investigating. That investigation was later dropped after Peter Moore was 

elected to the Board of Trustees. 

B. Ferritto’s Record of Harassment 

Ferritto’s Inappropriate Language and Conduct at Town Hall 

94. Ferritto’s comments became increasingly offensive and explicit as he settled into 

his job and became more acquainted with the women in Ordway’s Town Hall. While those 

comments initially seemed benign to the women, they progressed into ever more explicit 

territory. 

95. While Ferritto’s tendency to stare made several women uncomfortable in 

Ordway’s Town Hall – as did his habit of touching them for uncomfortably long periods of time 

– he focused much of his attention on Karen Dietrich during the period that they were both 

employed by the Town. 

25


96. Ferritto’s inappropriate comments to and actions toward Dietrich included: 

a. Numerous comments regarding Dietrich’s dress and appearance such as: 

• “Isn’t she cute, isn’t she dressed nice.” 

• “Doesn’t she have the greatest bod?” 

b. Comments regarding Dietrich’s breasts being the perfect size, “Don’t 

worry about them being small, all you need is a mouthful.” 

c. Repeated episodes of inappropriate and unwelcome physical contact with 

Dietrich, including: massaging her neck and shoulders, and repeatedly 

hugging her. 

97. On one occasion in the winter of 2009, while Dietrich was working late at night at 

Town Hall, Ferritto walked into Dietrich’s office and placed his arm against the wall so as to trap 

her in the small corner of the room, where she had been looking at papers in a filing cabinet. He 

then explained that he was no longer sleeping with his wife and told Dietrich that “some woman 

is going to really benefit from that.” He then made a move to approach Dietrich, who escaped 

around her desk and made an excuse about needing to leave. 

98. Dietrich approached the Trustees individually the next day – as she continued to 

do through the end of her time as Town Administrator – advising them of Ferritto’s unwanted 

sexual advances. Dietrich told them that Ferritto was getting too close for comfort and that his 

constant hugging and touching had become both demeaning and personally embarrassing in a 

professional environment. 

26


99. Neither the Trustees nor the Mayor took any action to stop Ferritto’s harassment, 

which prompted Dietrich to ask if she could work from home more frequently because she no 

longer felt safe at Town Hall. 

100. Ferritto also appeared to relish making women feel uncomfortable through the use 

of coarse and crass language that exceeded the bounds of normal workplace discourse. For 

example, on one occasion Ferritto told Dietrich, Julie Decker and Dorothy Mason that one of his 

daughters was afraid of contracting an STD while using a toilet on a trip with a school athletic 

team and thus was forced to urinate while standing. Ferritto then demonstrated to the three 

women how his daughter achieved the task, spreading his legs, squatting, and then using his 

fingers to imitate the process of separating vaginal lips. 

101. Dietrich told Ferritto that the conversation was over and walked out of the room. 

Mayor Haynes Instructs Ferritto Not to Talk to Women in Front Office 

102. After hearing harassment complaints from the women in the Town Hall, Mayor 

Randy Haynes informed Ferritto in July 2010 that he should no longer enter the Town Hall 

through the front entrance, which would require him to subsequently walk through the women’s 

work spaces. 

103. In a memo addressed to Town Hall staff, Mayor Haynes outlined the “council’s 

behavioral expectations” as determined in an “informal June 10, 2010 meeting,” Haynes 

specifically directed that: 

Marshall Ferritto and all other law enforcement personnel are to 

use the rear entrance to the Marshall’s office area and are to have 

no direct contact with other office staff unless a Town Council 

member is present. Marshall’s office must stay out of front office 

area. Marshall’s office requests for support from Town staff will 

be made to the Mayor in writing. 

27


Memo from Mayor Randall Haynes to Marshall William Ferritto, Terri Henderson, Kristy Ojeda, 

Dorothy Mason, and Julie Decker, August 12, 2010 

104. Ferritto, angry about the directive, told Town staff that Haynes was treating him 

as if he were Black. 

105. According to Haynes, Ferritto contacted an attorney to determine whether he 

could sue Ordway for requiring that he use the back door. Ferritto told Julie Decker that he 

would be suing the Town and Randy personally, because he “isn’t black so he cannot be told to 

use the back door and he is not going to use it.” 

Citizens Start Complaining of Harassment by Ferritto 

106. Not long after they hired him as Town Marshal, the Trustees began hearing 

reports that Ferritto was also behaving inappropriately toward Ordway’s citizens in his law 

enforcement capacity. Ferritto’s singular response to accusations of misconduct was to become 

angry and demand to know the identity of the accuser. 

107. Around January 2010, Mayor Randy Haynes received a telephone call from a 

woman who wished to file a complaint regarding Marshal Ferritto. The woman claimed that 

Ferritto had forced his way into her house and had touched her inappropriately during the 

incident. 

108. Haynes immediately told Karen Dietrich about the phone call and instructed her 

to inform Ferritto that a female citizen intended to file a complaint and that, in essence, he should 

be on his best behavior. 

109. After getting off the phone with Haynes, Dietrich stepped out of her office and 

asked Ferritto, who was in the Town Hall at the time, if she could speak with him alone in the 

28


garage. When Dietrich told Ferritto that there had been a verbal report and a complaint was 

expected to be filed regarding his conduct, Ferritto flew into a rage, yelling and repeatedly 

demanding to know who the woman was and claiming that the Town was violating his rights by 

not revealing the identity of his accuser. 

110. Dietrich did not know the woman’s identity but told Ferritto that the woman’s 

identity wasn’t important and that he needed to be conscious of how his actions might be 

perceived. 

111. After that conversation ended, Ferritto immediately went back into the Town Hall 

and confronted Julie Decker, accusing her of being the complainant. Decker denied filing a 

complaint. 

112. The woman never filed a formal complaint with Randy Haynes. 

Ferritto Attacks Julie Decker for Failing to Prevent Public Complaints About His Conduct 

113. In advance of an April 5, 2010 Trustee meeting, an Ordway citizen telephoned 

Julie Decker, who was filling in as the Town’s Clerk, to ask that she be placed on the agenda for 

the upcoming Trustee meeting as she had a complaint about Marshal Ferritto’s failure to 

adequately prosecute a dog complaint that she had filed. 

114. Decker duly listed the citizen on the agenda for the meeting. 

115. Once Marshal Ferritto saw the posted meeting agenda, he protested to Decker that 

she should not have added the citizen to the meeting agenda as citizens should take up their 

complaints with him first rather than the Board. Ferritto subsequently telephoned the citizen and 

warned her not to attend the April 5, 2010 trustee meeting as she had planned. 

116. The citizen did not attend the meeting. 

29


117. A similar situation occurred on May 17, 2010. At the beginning of that meeting, a 

different citizen told Decker that she wished to speak to the Trustees regarding a “personal 

matter.” 

118. After the citizen complained about Ferritto’s unprofessional conduct during the 

public comment period, Ferritto approached Decker while she was outside waiting for the 

Trustees to come out of executive session and yelled at her for not giving him advance notice of 

the citizen’s complaint. Ferritto once again ordered Decker to tell citizens that they needed to 

speak with him about any problems and that they were not permitted to talk to the Trustees about 

any ongoing issues. 

119. Although the Trustees promised that they would investigate her complaint and get 

back to her, the citizen never heard from them again. 

120. On information and belief, the Trustees never investigated the citizen’s complaint 

regarding Ferritto’s unprofessional conduct. 

Trustees Prohibit Public Criticism of Ferritto’s Conduct 

121. After two other citizens complained about Ferritto during a September 13, 2010 

Trustee meeting, Ferritto apparently decided that he needed to take further action to stifle public 

criticism. 

122. On information and belief, between September 14 and 20, 2010, Ferritto 

approached Trustees Larry Collins, Peter Moore and Bob Lowe and asked them to forbid 

Ordway’s citizens from publicly criticizing his on-the-job conduct during public comment at 

Trustee meetings. 

30


123. Acceding to Ferritto’s wishes, the Trustees subsequently announced to the public 

that the Trustees would no longer permit citizens to make specific comments regarding Ferritto’s 

“current investigations” during Trustee meeting public comment period. 

124. In addition, Collins suggested that the Trustees should remove citizens’ names 

from the minutes of public comment periods and summarize their statements, thereby censoring 

the specifics of the complaints. 

125. On information and belief, the Trustees’ decision to stifle criticism during public 

comment was made to protect Ferritto from scrutiny over his harassment of members of the 

public. 

C. Ferritto’s Harassment of Amber Decker 

Amber Decker: The First Incident 

126. Marshal Ferritto’s harassment of Julie Decker’s daughter Amber is consistent 

with his well-documented pattern of preying upon people – and women in particular – whom he 

perceives to be reserved and unlikely to protest too loudly. 

127. Amber Decker, who was homeschooled since the third grade, has a reputation for 

being socially awkward and extremely averse to confrontation, making her an attractive target 

for Ferritto’s sexual harassment. That harassment occurred over the course of three incidents, in 

two of which Ferritto grabbed the front of Amber Decker’s shirt near her breasts, and in the other 

he asked her to send him nude photos of herself and fantasized out-loud about chasing her on the 

beach naked. 

128. In the first incident, which occurred between late May and early June 2010, 

Amber Decker and her sister Candace Decker went to visit their mother, Julie Decker, at the 

31


Ordway Town Hall. Amber Decker and Candace Decker were talking to their mother at the 

front desk when Ferritto approached, focusing his attention on Amber. Ferritto proceeded to 

grab Amber Decker’s shirt and pull it up toward her before expressing appreciation for the 

teenager’s breasts. Amber Decker, Candace Decker and their mother exchanged awkward 

glances but said nothing about Ferritto’s conduct. Ferritto then walked around to the other side 

of the desk and the conversation continued. 

129. Upset, Amber Decker disengaged from the conversation and fell quiet. She 

eventually stated that they had better go. Outside with her sister and mother, Amber remained 

quiet. Julie Decker finally told her daughters that what Ferritto had done was inappropriate and 

should not have happened. Amber Decker responded with a deflated “yeah,” and she and 

Candace left Town Hall. 

130. Extremely upset and uncomfortable, Amber Decker refused to discuss the 

incident with anyone. 

Amber Decker: The Second Incident 

131. On a subsequent occasion, when Amber and Candace Decker were again visiting 

their mother at Town Hall, Ferritto made more inappropriate comments towards Amber. 

132. Amber Decker, Candace Decker, and their mother were talking at the counter 

about Amber’s upcoming trip to Hawaii with her father and his family. Ferritto, who was 

engaged in another conversation at the time, overheard and approached the women. 

133. Joining the conversation, the Marshal began his onslaught of unwelcome 

comments. Ferritto said that he wished he could go to the beach and began telling Amber about 

the nude beaches in Hawaii. Trying to diffuse the awkwardness of the situation, Julie Decker 

32


joked to her daughter that she “better not go to the nude beaches.” Ferritto, however, proceeded 

to ask Amber if she would send him some pictures of herself at a nude beach (and presumably 

nude herself) and said that he wished he could go along and chase her naked down the nude 

beaches. 

Amber Decker: The Third Incident 

Amber Decker: The Third Incident 

134. Over the course of the last two years, Marshal Ferritto has developed a habit of 

visiting the Crowley County Nursing Center late at night so he can visit Amber Decker, who is a 

Certified Nursing Assistant (“CNA”) at the facility, and socialize with the other nurses. During 

his visits, which routinely last one to two hours, he lingers around the nurses’ station, creating an 

uncomfortable environment for the nurses. 

135. Ferritto’s stated reason for visiting during the graveyard shift is to get coffee and 

to get his blood pressure checked – usually requesting a young CNA. 

136. Although she was recently transferred from the graveyard shift, Amber Decker 

felt, and continues to feel, very uncomfortable during Ferritto’s visits. When the Marshal is 

there, Amber Decker has a persistent feeling that he is watching her, in large part because he 

frequently is. That is to say, when she does glance in his direction she often finds him staring at 

her. 

137. While Amber Decker has long been afraid to be alone with Ferritto, she only 

began actively avoiding him in public after he touched her inappropriately while she was on the 

job. 

33


138. In that incident, Amber Decker had leaned onto the nurses’ station so as to ask 

Jasmine Stroud, a co-worker seated at the station, a question regarding a resident. At that 

moment, Ferritto appeared and approached Decker while she was leaning over speaking with 

Stroud. Much as he had done at the Town Hall, Ferritto reached over between Amber’s breasts, 

took hold of her medical scrub uniform and moved it around a bit, feigning as if he were helping 

her to cover up, saying “your boobies are showing.” Amber Decker flashed him a dirty look and 

walked away, hoping that she could escape into another room without being followed. 

Fallout From Julie Decker’s Efforts to Protect Her Daughter From a Predatory Police Officer 

139. Having witnessed first-hand Ferritto’s perverse attraction to her teenage daughter, 

in the wake of the first incident Julie Decker was incensed. 

140. While she did not wish to file a formal complaint on her daughter’s behalf – 

inasmuch as Amber Decker was mortified by the incident and Julie Decker didn’t want to make 

waves as she feared being fired and needed her job – she mentioned the incident in confidence to 

Chubbuck and then Mayor Randy Haynes. Word of Julie Decker’s communications to 

Chubbuck and Haynes spread to other Trustees and ultimately got back to Ferritto, who called 

Julie Decker at home and yelled at her over the phone accusing her of pushing her daughter to 

file a complaint. Julie Decker explained that she simply wanted to bring it to the Trustees 

attention and had not intended to file a complaint. 

141. In an ensuing face-to-face confrontation with Julie Decker at Town Hall, Ferritto 

pulled what appeared to be a pen out of his pocket and told Decker that it was actually a recorder 

that could record up to 16 hours at a time. Ferritto then told Decker that “he had my daughter on 

34


recording saying that I wanted her to sue him for sexual assault.” Decker informed Ferritto that 

her daughter had never said any such thing. 

142. During a subsequent Ordway Town Council executive session, the Trustees asked 

Julie Decker to join them behind closed doors along with Marshal Ferritto. Trustee Larry Collins 

then proceeded to accuse Julie Decker of soliciting a girl to make complaints about Marshal 

Ferritto. Decker became angry and responded that “that was my daughter, it made her very 

uncomfortable, and it happened right here in this office.” 

143. On information and belief, the Board of Trustees never reprimanded Ferritto for 

his conduct toward Amber Decker. 

Amber Decker Uncovers Ferritto’s Animal Abuse 

144. On May 31, 2011, Amber Decker was helping her friend and co-worker Jasmine 

Stroud look for her dog, which had run away. While Stroud searched for the dog in a separate 

car, Amber Decker picked up her aunt, Shanda Flick, who had volunteered to help. 

145. After searching Ordway for Stroud’s dog without success, Flick mentioned that 

Ferritto had recently captured several dogs, and as a last resort, the pair headed to the Town’s 

Kennel as that is where they knew Julie Decker had taken stray or run-away dogs when she was 

the Town’s Code Enforcement Officer. 

146. The Kennel is located at 129 Lake Avenue in Ordway, on the “Town Yard” 

property. In addition to the Kennels, the Town Yard houses the Ordway and Crowley County 

Garages (which share a common building) and Ordway’s roll-away dumpsters, which are 

available for citizen use. The property is open to, and commonly used by, the public during 

35


normal business hours. Once inside the Town Yard, there is no internal fencing limiting access 

to the Kennels, and there are no signs announcing restrictions upon public access. 

147. Amber Decker and Flick arrived at the Kennel between noon and 1:00 p.m. on 

May 31. Though they did not find Stroud’s dog, they recognized one of the caged dogs to be 

“Chica,” whom they knew to belong to Rick Martinez, an Ordway resident. Unlike the other 

dogs in the Kennel, Chica had no food or water. Ferritto had seized the dog from the Martinez’s 

home a few days earlier, having declared it to be “vicious” as a result of Ordway resident Jim 

Adams’ allegation that Chica, or perhaps one of the other dogs in the Martinez household, had 

attacked his dog. Adams is good friends with both the Collins and Marshal Ferritto. 

148. Amber Decker proceeded to take a photograph of the dog and sent it via text 

message to Lucinda Gallegos, who is Rick Martinez’s wife and Amber’s co-worker at the 

nursing center. After about 15 minutes, Flick and Amber Decker left the Kennel. 

149. Concerned and upset about the neglected dog at the Kennel, Amber Decker 

returned to the Town Kennel the next day, June 1, 2011, with her friend Amanda Hyatt as a 

witness. Amber Decker and Amanda Hyatt, once again, found Martinez’s dog without food or 

water while the dog next to it had food and water. With the aim of providing proof that the dog 

was not vicious and was being neglected, Amber took two photographs of the dog with Amanda 

Hyatt by the kennel, which was locked. Within about 10 minutes of arriving, the two left the 

Kennel. 

150. Amber Decker, again, forwarded the pictures to Gallegos via text message. Rick 

Martinez subsequently complained to Trustees regarding the neglect of his dog, which he 

explained was not vicious. 

36


Ferritto Cites Amber Decker for Trespassing 

151. Though Ferritto had not been at the Kennel on either day, he learned of Decker 

and Hyatt’s visit – presumably having seen the photos that Decker had sent the Martinez’s and 

which Rick Martinez had shared with Trustees. 

152. On the evening of Friday, June 3, 2011, Ferritto walked into the Crowley County 

Nursing Center visibly angry and demanded to speak with Amber Decker and Amanda Hyatt. 

When Hope Gonzalez, the supervising nurse on duty at the time, refused, he threatened to charge 

her with obstruction of justice if she did not hand over Decker and Hyatt immediately. 

153. After calling the facility Administrator at home and getting his authorization to 

produce the employees, Gonzalez told Hyatt that she needed to speak with Ferritto. Amber 

Decker was not yet at work but Gonzalez promised to call Ferritto as soon as she arrived. 

Ferritto again threatened to charge the supervising nurse with obstruction of justice if she did not 

call him the moment that Decker arrived. 

154. When Hyatt came forward, Ferritto asked to speak with her alone. She agreed. 

Ferritto did not issue a ticket to Amanda Hyatt. 

155. Having been told that Ferritto was looking for her but not knowing why, Amber 

Decker was terrified upon arriving at work to see the Marshal circling the nursing center in his 

cruiser. Still traumatized by her previous incidents with Ferritto, Amber called her mother Julie 

Decker in tears. Julie Decker told her daughter to speak to Ferritto but to under no circumstance 

agree to be alone with him. 

37


156. As her mother had instructed, when Ferritto asked to speak with her in private, 

Amber Decker said that she would not be alone with him and that she would only talk in the 

presence of her co-workers. 

157. Obviously irritated, Ferritto then loudly announced that he was charging Decker 

with trespassing, and proceeded to write out a ticket charging her with trespassing on “Private 

Property,” although the address listed – 129 Lake Avenue – is the same as that listed on Julie 

Decker’s ticket regarding George Johnson’s accident at the very public town garage. 

158. Decker’s court date is scheduled for July 26, 2011 at 6 pm. 

159. At a June 6, 2011 Trustee meeting, Ferritto explained to the Board that he had 

issued a ticket for trespassing because a person had tried to come into contact with two dogs he 

had quarantined. 

160. In fact, Decker had not come into physical contact with any dog in the locked 

Kennel cages. Amanda Hyatt, whom Ferritto did not cite for trespassing, had briefly petted 

Chica in order to demonstrate that it was not vicious. 

161. Plaintiffs are aware of no legal basis for the trespassing ticket that Ferritto issued 

to Amber Decker and allege that none exists. 

162. On information and belief, the Marshal decided to charge Amber Decker, but no 

one else, with trespassing in retaliation for her association with her mother, Julie Decker, her 

presence upon the list of harassment victims that Chubbuck had prepared for the DA, and her 

disclosure of his abuse of the Martinez’s dog Chica. 

163. On July 25, 2011 around 3 p.m., Ferritto paid Amber Decker yet another visit at 

the nursing center. Ferritto approached the nurses’ station where Amber Decker was sitting with 

38


Jasmine Stroud, Amanda Hyatt, and five CNA students. He said he needed to talk to “two 

people, one of which is sitting here,” looking straight at Amber Decker. Amber Decker, 

distraught and intimidated by Ferritto and his continued harassment, burst into tears and said, 

“Oh god! What do you want now?” 

164. Ferritto said that he had heard that she had moved and needed her new address 

and phone number. He continued, saying, “[i]f you just tell me, I will leave.” Decker, still 

crying, gave it to him. 

D. Ferritto Joins the Conspiracy 

Background – Ferritto Investigates the Moores and Collins 

165. While Dietrich was Town Administrator, Ferritto firmly aligned himself with her, 

pursuing – without any request from Dietrich – investigations that he believed would please her. 

166. For example, as described above, upon hearing questions about money that was 

alleged to have disappeared while she was Mayor, Ferritto opened an investigation into Nancy 

Moore and two other town employees and sought to involve the CBI. 

167. As a result of that alleged investigation, Ferritto publicly clashed with Peter 

Moore before he was elected trustee in April 2010. 

168. He also investigated Trustee Larry Collins and his wife Carrie Steele-Collins’ on 

the basis that they had bragged of their investigation into Dietrich and other Ordway employees. 

Ferritto paid specific attention to an incident involving Jesus Hernandez, an Ordway 

maintenance worker who spent nearly three months in Immigration and Customs Enforcement 

(“ICE”) custody after ICE received a call from a woman claiming to be Ordway’s Town 

Administrator telling them that Hernandez was in the country illegally and had committed a 

39


felony. Although Hernandez was eventually persuaded that Dietrich did not make the call – 

which she did not – Dietrich was forced to defend herself to Trustees and Town employees. 

169. Ferritto told Dietrich and the Trustees that he had determined that a Crowley 

County Sherriff’s Office dispatcher had pulled criminal records regarding Hernandez and every 

other Ordway Employee in the days before the call was made. Ferritto identified the dispatcher 

as Anne Chapman, the wife of Ordway Fire Chief Reed Chapman, and a good friend of the 

Collins. At the time, Larry Collins was a member of the Ordway Fire Department. 

made the call. 

170. Ferritto told Dietrich and the Trustees that he suspected that Carrie Steele-Collins 

Ferritto Senses Power Shift: Friends Become Enemies, Enemies Become Friends 

171. Always attuned to changes in the political winds, Ferritto took a dramatic change 

of course after Dietrich laid herself off as Town Administrator. In the immediate wake of 

Dietrich’s departure, Ferritto requested a private meeting with Peter Moore and Larry Collins. 

172. After that meeting, Ferritto dropped his purported investigation of Nancy Moore 

and the Collins and announced that he was investigating Karen Dietrich for misconduct that he 

alleged she had committed while with the Town. Ferritto also accused Dietrich of stealing a 

number of items that he alleged she had failed to return when she left the Town. 

173. For example, Ferritto claimed that Dietrich had stolen the laptop that Mayor 

Haynes had asked her to retain. In fact, on Haynes’ request, Dietrich had returned the laptop on 

the Monday following her Thursday, March 11, 2010 layoff. In the interim period, Dietrich had 

made backup copies of all of her personal files on the computer, which the Town had bought for 

her sole use. 

40


174. Ferritto next claimed that rather than merely remove her personal files, Dietrich 

had in fact performed a sophisticated disk wiping procedure on the computer, rendering it 

inoperable. As he summarized in an oral report he delivered during an August 16, 2010 Trustee 

meeting: 

Whoever deleted everything off of that computer used a 

scrambling disk, and they did it four to seven times. That 

computer does not operate because of that. You didn’t know that. 

That’s why. It does not operate because Ms. Dietrich put a disk in 

there and scrambled that computer and deleted it . . . 11 to 12 times 

over itself right . . . that was done and those were all town / city 

documents. Everything on that belongs to the City. 

Oral Statement of Marshal William Ferritto, delivered during the August 17, 2010 meeting of the 

Ordway Trustees. 

175. Contrary to Ferritto’s allegations, Dietrich did not delete any Town documents off 

of the laptop’s hard drive nor did she “wipe” the drive. As Ferritto should be aware, Dietrich’s 

computer knowledge is quite limited, and she did not and does not have any idea how to perform 

any such complicated disk wipe. 

176. Moreover, the falsity of Ferritto’s allegations is evident from the fact that both 

Julie Decker and Dorothy Mason continued to use the computer in the performance of their 

Town duties after Ferritto had completed his investigation and concluded that Dietrich had 

rendered the laptop irreparably inoperative. 

177. Ferritto also accused Dietrich of pilfering a fire pole out of the Town Hall, which 

had previously been a fire station, as well as of embezzling funds that had been donated to the 

Town to assist residents in recovering from a disastrous wildfire in 2006. 

178. Both allegations were later determined to be false. 

41


179. Upon information and belief, Ferritto’s decision to announce, if not genuinely 

pursue, a series of criminal investigations regarding Dietrich was taken in furtherance of a 

criminal conspiracy directed by LAVWCD, Peter Moore and Larry Collins. 

E. Conspirators Begin to Purge Town Hall of Dietrich Supporters. 

180. Dietrich being out of the way, apparently, was not enough for the Conspirators. 

181. After Dietrich left the Town on March 11, 2010, Conspirators sought to eliminate 

any vestiges of support that she might still have within the Town’s government and employees. 

Of particular concern were those they suspected were still giving Dietrich information. Both 

during Trustee meetings and in casual discussions in the Town Hall, Conspirators could be heard 

demanding to know who in Town Hall was still talking to Dietrich. 

182. With Ferritto by then firmly established as the Conspiracy’s “attack dog” of sorts, 

Conspirators focused their attention on the two employees that Dietrich had personally hired, 

Dorothy Mason and Julie Decker, as well as long-time Ordway Maintenance Supervisor George 

Johnson, who had been close with Dietrich while she was with the Town and had subsequently 

developed a close personal relationship with Mason. 

183. Also within Ferritto’s sights were the Conspirators’ two biggest targets: Mayor 

Randy Haynes and Trustee Lynn Chubbuck, both of whom had raised questions regarding 

LAVWCD and its Conduit, and both of whom Conspirators’ deemed knew too much regarding 

the Town’s water shares and their leasing. 

42


Ferritto Cites Julie Decker 

184. In addition to supporting the Conspiracy’s goal of erasing any remaining vestiges 

of support for Dietrich, Ferritto also had personal reasons for attacking Julie Decker – he knew 

that she had told the Trustees that the Marshal had harassed her daughter and had also compiled 

complaints of Ferritto’s harassment which she provided to Chubbuck. 

the law. 

185. Ferritto began retaliating against Decker by abusing his authority as an officer of 

186. On April 4, 2011, Ferritto issued citations to Decker and her sister, Shanda Flick: 

Decker’s was for littering and leaving animal feces and Flick’s for having a dog at large. 

Plaintiffs are aware of no legal basis for either ticket and allege there to be none. 

187. Specifically, Decker’s littering and animal feces ticket listed the violation date as 

March 2, 2011 and the place of the violation as a rental house that she had moved out of in 

September 2010 – six months before the day on which she was allegedly blighting the yard. 

188. Flick’s citation alleged that one of her three dogs had been “at large,” one dog 

needed its rabies shots, and all three dogs needed their license renewed in March 2011. 

189. Ferritto’s citations to both women were co-signed by complainants Michael & 

Kelly Webbe, to whom Decker had issued citations only weeks earlier after getting a call about 

the Webbe’s pit bull being loose in an alley. 

190. Flick was listed as a witness on the Webbes’ ticket because she had watched the 

dog enter the Webbe’s house after heading to the alley as a favor to Julie Decker, who was 

occupied on another animal call. 

43


191. The Webbes’ citation required them to appear in Crowley County Municipal 

Court, where they appeared and were found guilty on the dog at large charge. 

192. Immediately after the hearing, Marshal Ferritto followed the Webbes out of the 

courthouse and encouraged them to appeal the guilty verdict within the 10 days. On information 

and belief, Ferritto and the Webbes also discussed the citation that Decker had issued to them, 

and Ferritto offered to assist the Webbes in retaliating against Decker and Flick. 

193. The citations issued by Ferritto and signed by the Webbes were unsupported by 

evidence, and given the Webbes’ circumstances at the time they signed as witnesses on the 

tickets, Ferritto could not reasonably have thought there was probable cause to believe a crime 

had been committed. 

2011. 

194. Decker’s littering violation is scheduled to be heard by the court in September 

195. Flick’s dog at large citation was dismissed when neither Marshal Ferritto nor the 

Webbes appeared for the court hearing. Upon information and belief, Ferritto was in the 

courtroom immediately prior to the hearing on Flick’s dog at large ticket, but stepped out when 

that case was about to be called. 

Ferritto Issues Ticket to George Johnson and Julie Decker 

196. On January 10, 2011, George Johnson and Julie Decker were involved in a minor 

accident when the Town vehicle that Johnson was driving hit ice and slowly slid into the Town 

Garage. Julie Decker was in the passenger seat. 

197. The Town vehicle suffered no visible damage, while the metal frame of the Town 

Garage is slightly bent where the truck hit. 

44


198. Aside from Johnson and Julie Decker, no one was present to witness the accident. 

199. Ferritto arrived at the garage within an hour of the accident. When he arrived he 

asked what happened to the garage but expressed no concern about the accident neither taking 

down an accident report nor inquiring about taking witness statements. Since Ferritto had 

already arrived on the scene, neither Johnson nor Decker believed they had any obligation to 

make any further report concerning the accident. 

200. Though Ferritto took no action on the day of the accident, he subsequently 

decided to initiate an investigation. Ferritto asked Rocky Ford’s Police Department, for whom 

he had previously worked, to perform the investigation because the accident involved Town 

employees. That investigation was completed on, or before, February 14, 2011. 

201. On March 15, 2011, more than three months after the accident and a month after 

the investigation report was complete, Ferritto issued George Johnson four tickets in connection 

with the accident. The tickets, which would collectively add 28 points to Johnson’s license, cited 

Johnson for (1) careless driving, (2) leaving the scene of an accident, (3) failure to report an 

accident to the authorities, and (4) making a false statement to police. 

202. Ferritto issued Julie Decker a ticket alleging two separate crimes: (1) accessory to 

a crime and (2) making a false statement to police. 

postponed. 

203. The court date was scheduled for April 18, 2011at 1:30 PM, but was subsequently 

204. Ferritto has told Trustees that he and Town Treasurer Terri Henderson are the 

Town’s witnesses in the case, although neither was present at the time of the accident. Ferritto 

45


and Henderson have asserted that Johnson had been doing “donuts” in the Town Garage parking 

lot immediately prior to the accident which caused the collision. 

205. In fact, Johnson was not doing “donuts” or driving in an otherwise unsafe manner 

at the time of the accident, and neither Johnson nor Decker has made any statement that so 

implied. 

206. As Ferritto and Henderson were aware, Johnson would have lost his CDL license 

if he was adjudged guilty on all four tickets against him adding 28 points to his license. He 

would have, therefore, be unable to perform his duties as Ordway’s Maintenance Supervisor and 

would likely have lost his job, which he has held for 29 years. 

207. In addition, on March 21, 2011, Ordway’s Trustees approved Resolution #2011- 

03, changing Town policy with regard to Town property damaged by employees. Rather than 

holding such employees harmless as to the cost of such damages, which was the previous 

custom, if not official policy, the new policy required that responsible employees reimburse the 

Town for any repair costs. 

208. On July 25, 2011, Johnson, enmeshed in a messy divorce and fearful that he 

would lose the CDL that he needed to earn a living wage, accepted a plea bargain to a single 

charge of reckless driving in exchange for the prosecution’s agreement to drop the other three 

charges. The Court ordered Johnson to pay the Town restitution for the damage the town vehicle 

had caused to the Town Garage. 

209. There is no evidentiary basis for the charges against Decker, as there was none for 

the three charges dismissed by the prosecutor in Johnson’s case. Because these tickets were 

issued nearly three months after the accident in question, Plaintiff alleges that Ferritto’s citations 

46


to Decker were retaliatory in nature and designed solely to harass Plaintiff Decker for her loyalty 

to Chubbuck and Dietrich and her efforts to disclose Ferritto’s sexual harassment. 

Another One Gone: Dorothy Mason Terminated 

210. Dorothy Mason started as the Town of Ordway’s Bookkeeper in November 2009. 

Mason, whose son is good friends with one of Dietrich’s children, applied for the position at 

Dietrich’s urging, and the Trustees subsequently hired her in part on the basis of Dietrich’s 

recommendation. 

211. In furtherance of the Conspiracy’s effort to purge Ordway’s municipal 

government of any remaining employees who might harbor sympathies toward Dietrich and 

Chubbuck, Larry Collins, Peter Moore, and Terri Henderson collaborated in January 2011 to 

fabricate a paper trail to justify terminating Mason. 

212. Branding her a “left-over” from the Dietrich era, Collins and Moore suspected 

that Mason was continuing to share Town information with Dietrich. 

213. Having seen first-hand the treatment that Conspirators reserved for those who 

stood in their way, and as a single parent already forced to live in a state-subsidized low income 

apartment, Mason resolved to cut off all contact with Karen Dietrich so as to seem like more of a 

“team player.” 

214. It was Mason’s son, however, who felt the most serious impact. Because Dorothy 

Mason felt she could not risk being seen with Dietrich, she told her son that she would no longer 

take him over to the Dietrich house to hang out with his friend. 

47


215. Although the Conspirators successfully deterred Mason from exercising her First 

Amendment rights of free association by avoiding contact with Dietrich, they ultimately 

terminated her anyway. 

216. On January 10, 2011, the Trustees changed Mason’s job title and description to 

Assistant to the Treasurer and delegated Henderson as her direct supervisor. During this meeting 

the Trustees also voted to cut Mason’s hours from full-time to part-time, prompting Moore to 

ask: “do you think this will make her decide to leave?” 

217. Mason received a letter on January 14, 2011 explaining the changes to her title 

and job description and delegating Henderson, with whom she had repeatedly clashed, to be her 

supervision. This letter served as Mason’s first formal notice of the exact revamping of her title 

and job description. 

218. On the same day that she received this letter, Mason also received a counseling 

form, signed by Collins and Moore, notifying that she had violated the newly established rules in 

the weeks preceding their approval by the Trustees. Mason was also cited for insubordination 

for “refusing to carry out work assigned by the Treasurer (her supervisor).” 

219. In short, Collins and Moore disciplined Mason for having previously failed to 

obey the instructions of Terri Henderson, who the Trustees had only just appointed Mason’s 

Supervisor. 

220. On April 25, 2011, Mason received two more counseling forms for violating 

rules, signed only by Henderson. Henderson had written that Mason was neither completing her 

tasks in a timely manner nor doing what Henderson requested. 

48


221. Initially, Henderson and Mason’s relationship was civil, and Henderson praised 

Mason’s skills during Town Council meetings. Not long thereafter, however, having ingratiated 

herself with Ferritto and other Conspirators, Henderson began berating Mason after other 

employees had left the office. 

222. Determined to drive Mason out, Henderson, with the approval of the Trustees, 

began issuing Mason condescending daily work assignment memos that always included the 

following text: “Items to be completed by Cindee or myself and not by you: If the Town crew 

needs to be called for any reason, give that to Cindee and let her call the crew. Any work order 

that needs to be written needs to be handled by Cindee. In case Cindee is not available and the 

crew needs to be call {sic} Terri will do so.” See, e.g., Work Assignments for Dorothy Mason, 

5/11/2011. 

223. Henderson required Mason to sign the sheet at the bottom acknowledging that she 

was not to have any contact with the Town’s maintenance crew, headed up by fellow Dietrich 

“left-over” George Johnson. Henderson felt that Johnson was insufficiently deferential to her 

and frequently complained to Trustees about Johnson’s willingness to perform tasks for Mason 

when he refused to even take her calls. 

224. On May 17, 2011 at 2:58 p.m., due to what she termed “a serious instance,” 

Mayor Rusher sent an email calling for “an emergency meeting for the sole purpose of an 

executive session” to discuss personnel issues involving Dorothy Mason. That evening, Rusher 

sent a text to Chubbuck at 7:52 PM notifying him of a meeting at 8:00 PM. 

225. The “serious instance” had to do with a statement that Mason made to Henderson 

on the morning of May 17 in which Mason told Henderson that the Trustees had voted to ask her 

49


to be present during a visit by the auditors the next day, May 18. Henderson did not want her 

there, and she had previously approved Mason to be out attending a job-related seminar that 

entire day. 

226. While the Trustees had in fact voted to ask Mason to be in the office on the 18th, 

which Henderson knew because she had attended the May 16, 2011 Trustee meeting, Mason had 

falsely identified the source of her knowledge about the decision. Mason told Henderson that 

Mayor Kelli Jo Rusher had given her the news in a phone call. In fact, Town Clerk Cynthia 

Crouch had told her moments earlier in the parking lot, but had asked Mason not to tell 

Henderson that she’d told her. There had been no phone call from Rusher. 

227. After an executive session during the May 18, 2011 “emergency meeting,” the 

Trustees voted to terminate Mason’s employment. 3 

F. Report to the DA: Lynn Chubbuck Takes a Stand 

Chubbuck’s Confidential Letter to the DA 

228. By the start of 2011, the Trustees had heard a bevy of formal, informal, and 

simply rumored complaints regarding Marshal Ferritto’s inappropriate on-the-job conduct, 

especially regarding harassment of women. 

229. Frustrated that his fellow Trustees refused to take any affirmative action to rein 

Ferritto in, Chubbuck asked Julie Decker to help him compile a list of people who felt that they 

had been harassed by Ferritto and to gather written statements from as many of them as possible. 

3 While Plaintiff Lynn Chubbuck was present during the May 17, 2011 meeting and voted in favor 

of terminating Mason’s employment, he did so only once it became clear that he would be outvoted so as to preserve 

his ability to later bring a motion to reconsider. 

50


230. Once compiled, Chubbuck first passed the list along to Town Attorney Dan Hyatt. 

Hyatt’s response was to tell Chubbuck to send the information along to the District Attorney, 

Rodney Fouracre. 

231. Chubbuck mailed Fouracre the list of complainants and copies of the women’s 

personal statements on February 3, 2011. Concerned about the sensitivity of the information 

enclosed, Chubbuck listed his phone number, email and home address as contact information. 

The DA’s Intercepted Response 

232. Fouracre’s reply came two weeks later. Although the letter included only 

Chubbuck’s home address at the top, the envelope was addressed to: 

Lynn Chubbuck 

Trustee Town of Ordway 

Ordway CO 81063 

233. When Fouracre’s reply arrived at Town Hall on February 17, 2011, it was opened 

not by Chubbuck, but by Ordway Treasurer Terri Henderson. After reading the reply, which 

referenced the substance of Chubbuck’s letter and mentioned one of the sexual assault victims by 

name, Henderson showed it not to Chubbuck, but to Larry Collins, as well as, on information and 

belief, one or more other persons. 

234. Collins instructed Henderson to scan the letter and email it to each of the Town’s 

Trustees (including, incidentally, those Trustees who shared their email addresses with their 

spouses). Thus, although the confidential letter was written for and addressed to Chubbuck, he 

was among the last to read it. 

235. In his widely-disseminated reply, the DA said that he could not assist the Town in 

determining whether or not to retain Ferritto as an employee. But if Chubbuck wished to request 

51


a criminal investigation of Ferritto’s conduct, Fouracre would need to request investigatory help 

from a law enforcement agency, and Chubbuck would need to provide more detailed contact 

information for the complainants. 

236. In fact, Chubbuck had already compiled more detailed contact information for the 

complainants and emailed it to Dan Hyatt on February 16, 2011, the night before the Fouracre’s 

response arrived at Town Hall. Chubbuck asked Hyatt to pass the information along to Fouracre. 

Fouracre. 

237. On information and belief, Hyatt never forwarded that information on to 

The Trustee Response: Moore and Collins Furious 

238. In the wake of the disclosure of Chubbuck’s letter to Fouracre and subsequent 

explanation that he had done so on the advice of the Town Attorney Dan Hyatt, Collins sent the 

Trustees a furious email on the afternoon of February 19, 2011. 

239. Collins claimed that Chubbuck should have consulted with the rest of the Trustees 

before contacting Fouracre. “No one, not even Lynn Chubbuck had the right to proceed in this 

matter without the knowledge of the Board Members.” Larry Collins email to Trustees, February 

19, 2011 (emphasis in original). Collins asserted that there would have been no danger that any 

Trustee would have disclosed confidential information and “[t]o say that this is justification to 

not report is absolute Bull Shit.” Id. (emphasis in original). Collins went on to say that “NOT 

ME, NOT YOU, NOT THE TOWN, should [] be held responsible for the actions of a Rogue 

Trustee[‘]s independent actions.” Id. (emphasis in original). 

240. Moore chimed in via email later the same day, demanding “an explanation and the 

sooner the better.” Peter Moore email to Trustees, February 19, 2011. 

52


241. The next day Hyatt responded and confirmed that Chubbuck acted correctly and 

had acted in accordance with Hyatt’s advice: “Mr. Chubbuck upon my advice passed the citizen 

complaints through to the District Attorney where they should have gone by the complaining 

parties initially. I would have been happier had the complaints been made directly by citizens to 

the D.A. instead of through an elected official but that is not the way it happened.” Daniel Hyatt 

email to Trustees, February 20, 2011. The principal thrust of Hyatt’s email was that complaints 

about the on-duty conduct of law enforcement officers are not a personnel matter appropriate for 

evaluation by an elected body. 

242. Responding by email the next day, Moore protested that Hyatt had misunderstood 

the meaning of his and Collins’ emails on February 19th: 

I think you may have come to an incorrect conclusion about the 

Board’s motive . . .. There’s no way in the world that we would 

have ever entertained any thought of trivializing the potential 

seriousness of the matter nor would we have attempted to sweep it 

under the carpet by treating it as a personnel matter. Once we 

became aware of the situation, we (the uninformed six) made it 

clear we DID NOT want to know the particulars 

Email from Peter Moore, February 21, 2011 (emphasis in original). 

243. In his email, Moore then proceeded to ask for details about the particulars. “What 

is the form of the complaints, written or verbal? How is it that only one Trustee was contacted? 

How many complaints were received before that Trustee, on his own, concluded that this was a 

serious issue?” Id. 

244. Moore’s email concludes by implying that the complaints (of which he claims to 

know nothing at all) are false, and by clearly identifying the person he believes responsible – 

Karen Dietrich: 

53


Id. 

Are the left-overs from the now (thankfully) defunct Town 

Administrator era an actual source of the complaints? . . . I suggest 

that there exists a great deal of prejudice in a certain segment of 

our population against our Marshal because he is effective where 

that segment is concerned. I am confident that an independent 

investigation will reveal this and clear our Marshal. 

245. Upon information and belief, Decker, Mason, and Johnson are the “left-overs” 

from the Dietrich era to whom Moore’s email refers. 

VII. ALLEGATIONS PERTAINING TO THE TRAILER INVESTIGATION 

A. Background 

History of the Trailer 

246. In 1989, the SCORE Board (originally known as the “School and Community 

Organization for Recreational Enrichment”) arranged for the purchase of a food-preparation and 

concession trailer (the “Trailer”) to be used for concessions at Ordway’s then new baseball 

fields. The SCORE Board was created in 1988 to oversee the new fields, and its members were 

appointed by Ordway’s Trustees and the Crowley County Board of Education. The Trailer’s 

$4,000 purchase price was divided among three parties: the school district, which paid two-thirds 

of the price; the SCORE board, which paid one-sixth; and the Town of Ordway which paid the 

final one-sixth. 

247. Over the course of the next 15 years, the Trailer was used heavily by the Town, 

school district, and community groups in connection with youth athletic events. By 2005, 

however, the Trailer had fallen into substantial disrepair and for health and safety reasons could 

no longer be used. 

54


248. The Trailer’s myriad problems included: (1) a refrigeration unit that had long ago 

been rendered inoperable by a fire; (2) a complete lack of running water; (3) significant water 

damage caused by a leaky roof; and (4) an offensive odor resulting from an extensive mouse and 

insect infestation. At the end, the Trailer was used only to store herbicides and insecticides. 

249. No longer able to use the Trailer, the SCORE Board and the school district built a 

permanent concession stand in 2005. 

Apker Demands Trailer Be Removed 

250. In 2009, Crowley County Board of Education President Mike Apker (“Apker”) 

told Lynn Chubbuck and Blaine Arbuthnot that the SCORE Board needed to get rid of the 

Trailer, which had become an eye sore and safety hazard. 

251. Initially, Blaine Arbuthnot, Chubbuck’s brother-in-law and another SCORE board 

member, moved the Trailer from behind some trees at the ball park. Apker, after noticing the 

Trailer behind the trees, clarified that he didn’t just want the Trailer hidden but removed 

altogether. 

252. Hearing of Apker’s demand that the Trailer be removed altogether, SCORE Board 

members believed that the Board would have to pay someone to remove and properly dispose of 

the Trailer. 

55


Sale of the Trailer 

253. After Bart and Blaine Arbuthnot’s father passed away, they created a fund in his 

name to build dugouts at Ordway’s baseball complex. During a visit to his home town of 

Ordway, Barton “Bart” Arbuthnot, who now lives in Dumas, Texas, went to the ball park to see 

how construction was progressing. At the time, the SCORE Board was in the process of building 

permanent ball park concession stands, and Bart noticed that the Trailer had been removed from 

the close vicinity of the fields. 

254. Following his visit, Bart called Blaine to inquire what the SCORE Board planned 

to do about with the Trailer now that permanent concession stands had been built. Bart, unaware 

of the Trailer’s exact condition, told his brother that he would be interested in purchasing the 

Trailer for $300. Blaine, unsure of SCORE Board’s plans for the Trailer, said that he would 

consult with the members. 

255. Pleased to avoid the cost of disposing of the trailer themselves, the SCORE Board 

members voted to sell Bart the Trailer. At that time, the board’s membership included Blaine 

Arbuthnot, Chubbuck, Jim Trainor, and Orlando Terrones. Blaine Arbuthnot abstained from 

voting on the sale, which was approved by the unanimous vote of the other three Board 

members. 

256. Bart said that he would load the trailer onto the back of his truck during his next 

visit to Colorado. 

257. In anticipation of Bart coming to pick up the Trailer, Chubbuck spent a day and a 

half preparing it for transport by digging it out, replacing one tire, and repairing the other three 

tires. 

56


258. On May 9, 2009, Bart Arbuthnot arrived in Ordway to pick up the Trailer. 

259. Upon getting a first-hand look at how dilapidated the Trailer was and realizing 

exactly how much work would be required to return it to serviceable condition, Bart was inclined 

to back out on the deal. However, because he had told Blaine Arbuthnot and Chubbuck that he 

would take the Trailer off their hands and because Chubbuck had already invested a significant 

amount of time and effort in preparing the Trailer for transport, Bart decided to go ahead with the 

deal and simply junk the trailer in Texas if necessary. 

260. However, because the Trailer was so far gone, Bart reduced his offer to $100 on 

the assumption that he would have to pay about that much to have it safely disposed of in Texas. 

Chubbuck and Bart settled on $150. 

261. Happy to get anything for the hazardous eye-sore, the SCORE Board approved 

the reduced sale price, and Chubbuck delivered Bart’s check to Ordway’s Treasurer to deposit in 

the SCORE Board account. The Town cashed the check on June 24, 2009. 

Bart Refurbishes the Trailer and Prepares it for Service 

262. Although Bart’s wife Blenda was doubtful about the value of the trailer he had 

purchased, Bart and Blenda decided to attempt to refurbish the Trailer to meet his needs. 

Although they ultimately managed to restore the trailer to working condition, it cost them 

$12,123 to get there. 

263. Wishing to pull the trailer to Amarillo, Texas, Bart realized that he needed to 

register it with the Texas Department of Motor Vehicles. To do that, he would need the title, 

which he had never received from the school district. 

57


264. He subsequently requested the title from the school district. Glad to be rid of the 

Trailer, Superintendent John McCleary signed over the title on April 6, 2010 and had his 

secretary mail it to Bart in Dumas, Texas. 

265. Bart Arbuthnot soon came to regret his good deed in purchasing Ordway’s refuse. 

Before he had the opportunity to use his $12,123 refurbished trailer, Bart Arbuthnot received a 

call from his brother Blaine Arbuthnot in February 2011 informing him that Marshal Ferritto had 

initiated an investigation into the sale of the trailer two years earlier. 

B. Investigation: A Concerted Effort to Eliminate Lynn Chubbuck 

Suspicious Timing 

266. In the days immediately after Terri Henderson’s widespread dissemination of the 

February 16, 2011 confidential letter from the District Attorney to Chubbuck, Trustee Larry 

Collins, Mayor Kelli Jo Rusher, and Marshal Ferritto arranged a meeting with Rodney Fouracre. 

267. On information and belief, the three (1) assured Fouracre that Chubbuck’s 

harassment allegations regarding Ferritto were unfounded and (2) told Fouracre that Ferritto was 

investigating Chubbuck and the Arbuthnots for their role in the sale of the trailer nearly two 

years earlier. On information and belief, the three urged Fouracre to file criminal charges against 

Chubbuck and the Arbuthnots. 

268. To be clear, Ferritto’s investigation of the Trailer sale began immediately after 

Henderson disclosed Chubbuck’s initial letter to the DA. 

269. Upon information and belief, the Conspirators first became aware of Bart 

Arbuthnot’s purchase of the Trailer in April 2010 when Carrie Steele-Collins, whose work area 

at the school district put her in close proximity to the Superintendent, overheard a discussion 

58


regarding the Superintendent’s instruction that the Trailer title be mailed to Bart Arbuthnot in 

Texas. 

270. Although Steele-Collins shared her information regarding the Trailer with other 

Conspirators well before February 2011, no steps were taken to investigate the sale until 

Chubbuck’s complaint regarding Ferritto became known via Henderson’s improper disclosure. 

Distorted Facts: The Trailer Was a Jewel 

271. All of Ferritto’s allegations of criminal conduct related to the Trailer sale are 

based upon a premise that Ferritto knows to be false: the Trailer was in pristine condition and 

had a value far greater than the $150 paid by Bart Arbuthnot. As Bart Arbuthnot’s May 2009 

photos demonstrate beyond question (which photos Ferritto has seen), the Trailer was effectively 

unusable at the time Bart purchased it, and would have remained so but for the $12,123 that Bart 

and Blenda spent to refurbish it. 

272. Plaintiffs contend that Ferritto has no, and never has had any, intention of 

initiating a bona fide criminal case regarding the Trailer sale. Rather, in conjunction with his 

Co-Conspirators, Ferritto has used and continues to use his alleged “investigation” in an effort to 

intimidate Chubbuck by publicly disparaging him and his family. 

273. As part of his effort to intimidate Chubbuck and his family, Ferritto reported the 

Trailer as stolen on law enforcement databases. He has also repeatedly contacted the Dumas, 

Texas Police Department in an effort to persuade them to seize the trailer, which they have thus 

far refused to do. 

59


Ferritto Questions Blaine Arbuthnot 

274. On March 11, 2011, Blaine received a visit from Marshal Ferritto at Chubbuck 

Motors, the car dealership that he manages. Ferritto told Blaine that he was under investigation 

for fraud and requested a handwriting sample. Blaine, whose son Derrick was with him during 

the conversation, told Ferritto that he would not talk to him without an attorney present. Ferritto 

told Blaine that he did not need an attorney. 

275. Ferritto claimed that he had written statements demonstrating that Blaine had 

helped load and had perhaps himself transported the Trailer. As Blaine told Ferritto at the time, 

Blaine and Pam Arbuthnot were in Nebraska attending a nephew’s graduation on May 9, 2009, 

and thus could not have been in Ordway loading the trailer. 

276. At this point, Ferritto left Chubbuck Motors and walked outside. Then, within 

plain sight of the dealership, he walked to the corner where Larry Collins was standing and 

spoke with him for several minutes. Ferritto then returned to Chubbuck Motors to speak with 

Blaine. 

277. Upon his return, Ferritto’s tone changed and he proceeded to tell Blaine that he 

did not think he was criminally responsible but told him that he needed him to cooperate by 

providing evidence Ferritto could use against Lynn Chubbuck 

278. Blaine refused to talk to Ferritto further without an attorney present. 

60


Collins Repeatedly Pressures Blaine Arbuthnot at Work 

279. In the early afternoon on March 15, 2011, Larry Collins paid a personal visit to 

Blaine Arbuthnot at Chubbuck Motors. Blaine again said that he would not talk without an 

attorney present, but he would listen to what Collins had to say. Collins struck a conciliatory 

tone, saying that he respected Blaine and claimed the Trustees were not aware of the 

investigation until it was blown out of control by Ferritto. Blaine retorted that Ferritto reports to 

the Town Council and expressed doubt about Collins’ claimed ignorance. He then asked what 

the Trustees thought the Trailer was worth to which Collins responded one person’s junk is 

worth $500,000 to another. Collins then told Arbuthnot that Chubbuck had been “stonewalling” 

Ferritto and asked Blaine to help Ferritto and the Trustees get to the bottom of things. 

280. In fact, as Chubbuck made clear in a March 20, 2011 email to other Trustees, 

neither Ferritto nor the Town Council had requested information from Chubbuck concerning the 

Trailer. 

281. On March 17, 2011, Collins and Trustee William Meyer visited Blaine at 

Chubbuck Motors and informed him that the Ordway Town Council had removed both Blaine 

and Chubbuck from the SCORE board. 

282. The following day, March 18, 2011, Collins returned to Chubbuck Motors. This 

time, he told Blaine that he was there to negotiate the Trailer investigation, but not on behalf of 

the Trustees. Collins said that he was looking to reach a solution for the Town that would cause 

the least damage to everyone. Blaine inquired as to the value the Town placed on the Trailer. 

Collins muttered that he did not know but suggested $1,000 or $2,000 and asked him to mull 

over what could be done. 

61


283. At that point, Lynn Chubbuck arrived at Chubbuck Motors and told Collins to 

leave. Collins immediately left. 

Chubbuck and Arbuthnots Gather Statements Regarding Pre-Sale Condition of Trailer 

284. Concerned over Ferritto’s blatantly false claims that the Trailer had been in 

“pristine condition,” Pam Arbuthnot asked friends and co-workers who had used the Concession 

Trailer to provide written statements attesting to the Trailer’s condition when it was sold. At 

least one referenced the Trailer by its colloquial name, the “Roach Coach.” 

285. Blaine Arbuthnot and Chubbuck provided those statements to Ferritto, the DA 

and the Dumas, Texas Police Department. 

Ferritto and the Crowley County School District 

286. Ferritto responded by beginning a full court press. He visited each of the 

statement authors, as well as the members of the Crowley County School Board, and 

Superintendent Scott Cuckow at work and at home. Though uninvited, he remained for hours at 

a time, vigorously asserting to Blaine and Pam Arbuthnot’s friends and colleagues that Blaine 

Arbuthnot had committed fraud and pressuring those who had signed statements about the 

condition of the Trailer to retract them and sign new ones that he had prepared. 

287. On March 14, 2011, a very upset Scott Cuckow visited Blaine at Chubbuck 

Motors. Cuckow showed Blaine a statement he gave to Ferritto in hopes that it would put an end 

to the investigation and harassment. Cuckow told Blaine that Ferritto had told him that “there is 

a group of us in town that are tired of the Chubbucks, Arbuthnots, and Apkers and the good old 

boys club, and we’re going to bring them down.” 

62


288. Later that month, Cuckow told Blaine that he received a separate visit from Larry 

Collins and Peter Moore at his district offices to speak with him regarding the Trailer 

investigation. Notably, Collins and Moore told him that if Chubbuck was to resign from the 

Town Board Ferritto’s trailer investigation would end. 

289. Tired of the cloud of uncertainty, Superintendent Scott Cuckow, who had begun 

at the school district in Fall 2010, discussed the matter with the Board of Education on March 22, 

2011. 

290. The Board’s minutes reflect the following: “Mr. Cuckow was invited to the Town 

Council meeting and invited to go into executive session where the concession trailer was 

discussed. Mr. Cuckow told the Town Council the District School Board was happy to get rid of 

the concession trailer and wanted no part of the trailer recovery. After discussion was held on 

this topic Mr. Leif Berg stated that the Crowley County School Board was satisfied with the 

process and the dollar amount received during the liquidation of the concession trailer and the 

board has no interest in pursuing this any further.” See Crowley County School District RE-1J 

Minutes, Board of Education Meeting, March 22, 2011. 

291. Cuckow subsequently informed Ferritto of the Board’s decision. 

Ferritto Threatens School Board Members. 

292. During unannounced visits to School Board members’ homes, Ferritto threatened 

that unless they assisted him in his investigation they were likely to have to travel to Dumas, 

Texas to testify at a trial regarding the theft of the Trailer. 

293. Indeed though John McCleary had resigned as Superintendent in July 2010, 

Ferritto tracked him down to pressure him as well. Visiting him in at his current home in Pueblo, 

63


Ferritto demanded that he produce a handwriting sample, telling McCleary that he believed that 

his signature on the title had been forged. He repeatedly refused to accept McCleary’s statement 

that he had in fact personally signed over the title to Bart, and pushed the former Superintendent 

to sign a statement to the contrary. 

294. On May 3, 2011, Ferritto wrote a letter to the Crowley County Board of 

Education regarding the Superintendent’s statement that “the school district did not wish to 

pursue charges” with regard to the trailer. Ferritto asserted that this statement “gives the 

appearance that the school district is willing to accept and dismiss the Town’s interest, no matter 

whether criminal laws against the Town and citizens of Ordway were violated.” Ferritto further 

stated that he believed that “without having the complete facts of the case the School Board and 

representatives appear to be supporting any criminal violations that occurred.” 

295. The School Board referred the letter to its attorney for response. 

296. On May 12, 2011, Board of Education’s attorney Bradley Bufkin (“Bufkin”) 

responded on the Board’s behalf in a letter to the Town of Ordway, Marshal Ferritto and DA 

Fouracre. Bufkin called the allegations in Ferritto’s letter “grossly inaccurate” and continued as 

follows: 

The Board believes that this situation exemplifies the need for 

improvement in terms of future communication between the 

SCORE Committee, the Town, and the District. Nevertheless, the 

Board is of the position that the Trailer should have been removed 

from District’s property, as it was over 20 years old, was in an 

extremely poor and dilapidated condition, and was a potential 

safety hazard. While the Board was unaware that the Trailer was 

going to be sold, it fully supported the execution of necessary title 

documents in order to facilitate its removal from the District’s 

property. 

When Mr. Ferritto asked the District’s Superintendent if the Board 

64


wished to pursue this matter (presumably referring to any rights the 

District might have in connection with any alleged wrongdoing), 

the Superintendent duly conferred with the Board. The Board 

advised that it did not wish to pursue this matter, and the 

Superintendent merely advised Mr. Ferritto of this fact. 

See Ordway Marshal’s Office Letter to the Crowley County Board of Education, May 3, 2011 

Board of Education President Mike Apker Succumbs to Ferritto’s Pressure 

297. Throughout the investigation, Ferritto repeatedly visited members of the Board of 

Education, particularly Mike Apker. Ferritto applied pressure and continues to apply pressure to 

those who wrote statements, questioning them regarding the condition and sale of the trailer and 

pushing them to sign statements that he had drafted for them and which were not consistent with 

their recollection of the truth. Many refused to do so, but others wrote their own statements 

asserting that they did not support the criminal activity, if any, surrounding the trailer. 

298. Ferritto focused on Apker with particular ferocity. 

299. On information and belief, Ferritto has threatened to reopen an investigation into 

an alleged two- to three-year-old arrest by the Crowley County Sheriff’s Department on 

suspicion of driving under the influence. 

300. On information and belief, Ferritto’s pressure led to Apker’s resignation as the 

Board of Education President on May 9, 2011. 

301. Though the school board and Superintendent have repeatedly stated the District’s 

position on Ferritto’s wild-goose chase of an investigation, Ferritto continues to apply pressure. 

This unrelenting pressure has put an immense strain upon Blaine and Pam Arbuthnot’s working 

relationships – Pam as a high level District employee, and Blaine through a grounds and lawn 

maintenance contract that he personally has with the District, and also through the vehicle 

65


maintenance agreement that the District has with Chubbuck Motors, which he manages. On 

information and belief, Ferritto’s persistent harassment of Cuckow and members of the school 

board is intended to jeopardize Blaine and Pam Arbuthnot’s contracts with the school district so 

as to pressure them to distance themselves from Lynn Chubbuck. 

Ferritto Begins Harassing Bart and Blenda Arbuthnot 

302. On at least five occasions, Marshal Ferritto has called Blenda Arbuthnot’s office. 

In Ferritto’s initial call on March 9, 2011, he left a message stating that he needed to speak to the 

Arbuthnots for personal reasons. 

303. Following Ferritto’s call, Bart realized that Ferritto would not let his investigation 

be deterred by the true condition of the Trailer when Bart purchased it. Bart thus hired an 

attorney on March 10, 2011 to assist him with the matter: Rick Russworm (“Russworm”) in 

Dumas, Texas. 

304. Ferritto not only called Blenda’s office but also placed calls to the Dumas police 

station requesting that it impound the Trailer. 

305. Although the Dumas police refused Ferritto’s request, a sergeant from the 

department visited Bart and Blenda at their office and warned them that their Trailer, which Bart 

had moved into storage, had been reported as stolen in Colorado. The sergeant told Bart that if 

he saw the Trailer on public property he would have to arrest him. 

306. Thwarted by the Dumas police, Ferritto resorted to his tried and true law 

enforcement tactic – harassment and intimidation. Over the course of several days, Ferritto 

placed repeated calls to Blenda’s office, each time asking for Dumas police and telling 

66


whichever employee answered that Bart and Blenda Arbuthnot were under criminal investigation 

for fraud. 

307. On each and every occasion the Arbuthnots’ employees told Ferritto that he had 

the wrong number. 

308. When Ferritto telephoned Arbuthnot attorney Rick Russworm on April 11, 2011, 

e said that someone had said that they would have paid $1,500 for the Trailer and asserting that 

this was the true value. Although Russworm questioned Ferritto’s valuation, he told Ferritto that 

if paying $1,500 to the Town of Ordway would settle the matter, he was sure Bart would be 

willing to pay it. Ferritto retorted that it wasn’t about the money but the principle and declined 

the offer on behalf of the Town of Ordway. 

Trustees Greenlight Ferritto Trip to Texas to Retrieve the Trailer 

309. In May 2011, with the express approval of the Ordway Trustees, Ferritto traveled 

to Dumas, Texas with the stated aim of retrieving the Trailer and bringing it back to Ordway. 

Marshal Ferritto visited Russworm on May 13, 2011 and claimed that Bart had a false title and 

that he possessed the true title, which he presented. 

310. Ferritto, with the aim of exhausting his resources in Texas, also went to the 

Dumas police, the District Attorney and the Justice of the Peace in a further attempt to solicit 

assistance in seizing the Trailer. All refused. 

311. On June 6, 2011, after his return from Dumas, Ferritto again visited 

Superintendent Scott Cuckow and bragged that he had successfully retrieved the Trailer from the 

Arbuthnots. In fact, the Trailer was still in Texas, where it remains as of the date of this 

Complaint. 

67


312. On information and belief, the Town of Ordway has expended more than $10,000 

in connection with its pursuit of the Trailer investigation. 

Texas District Attorney Declines to Prosecute 

313. In June 2011, the Dumas Police Department completed its investigation into the 

Trailer issues raised by Ferritto and forwarded its file to the Moore County District Attorney. 

314. On July 7, 2011, the Moore County District Attorney told Russworm that his 

office had decided that it would not prosecute the Arbuthnots. 

Trustees and Ferritto Persist in Pursuing Prosecution 

315. Meanwhile, during a contentious June 2011 conversation with Chubbuck, Ordway 

Mayor Kelli Jo Rusher said that the Town had asked Fouracre to issue an arrest warrant for 

Chubbuck in connection with the Trailer investigation. According to Rusher, Fouracre refused. 

316. Having been thwarted by Fouracre, the Trustees sought legal help from Ordway 

Attorney Dan Hyatt, who told them that he was recusing himself on the basis of his prior 

representation of Blaine Arbuthnot. 

317. In response, the Trustees voted on June 6, 2011 to hire Pueblo attorneys Mullens, 

Piersel and Reed P.C. at $180 per hour for assistance with “an ongoing investigation.” The 

minutes reflect that the firm was chosen by Larry Collins. 

318. The meeting minutes summarize Collins’ explanation of why the Town needed to 

hire outside counsel to help pursue the matter: 

[T]here has been some inappropriate trustee conduct in the form of 

bulling and threats by Trustee Chubbuck to both himself and the 

Marshal. [Collins] also stated that hopefully the Board would not 

tolerate this type of behavior. Mayor Pro Tem Collins asked the 

Board to investigate the allegations. He asked for the Board to 

68


enable him to brief legal counsel regarding the investigation into 

the above matter. 

Revised Minutes of June 6, 2011 Ordway Town Council meeting, at 4 (emphasis in original). 

319. At the same meeting, the Trustees approved Trustee Peter Moore’s motion to 

allow Collins one hour to speak with legal counsel regarding “trustee misconduct issues,” as well 

as a separate motion to permit Marshal Ferritto “one hour to brief the legal counsel in this 

ongoing investigation.” 

320. Notably, earlier in the same meeting, the Trustees discussed the Town’s inability 

to pay its bills as they were coming due and asked Hyatt to draft a proposed resolution that 

would permit the Town to borrow the money from normally-segregated accounts. 

Chubbuck Charged with Harassment and First Degree Official Misconduct 

321. On Sunday, June 19, 2011, Ferritto appeared unannounced at Lynn Chubbuck’s 

house and delivered two citations, each charging Chubbuck with one count of Harassment 

pursuant to § 18-9-111(6)(h), C.R.S. and one count of First Degree Official Misconduct pursuant 

to § 18-8-404(1)(c), C.R.S. Because the violations alleged are misdemeanors (rather than 

felonies), they are not required to, and in this case do not, include a supporting affidavit 

describing the factual basis for the crime charged. The tickets merely state the date, time and 

location of the alleged violations. 

322. The first ticket, #10028, identifies April 21, 2011 at 9 a.m. as the date and time of 

the violation and lists the address of Chubbuck Motors as the place where the crime occurred. 

As Chubbuck’s Transportation Technology Center time card reflects, he worked for nine hours 

on April 21, 2011. Thus he was physically at work in Pueblo from 7:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. on that 

day and could not have been at Chubbuck Motors at 9 a.m.. Indeed, he was not at Chubbuck 

69


Motors at all on April 21. Plaintiffs are unaware of any possible basis for these charges and 

allege that none exists. 

323. The second ticket, #10029, alleges that Chubbuck committed the crimes alleged 

on May 17, 2011 at 8 p.m. in the Ordway Town Hall, the night of a hastily convened, and 

insufficiently noticed, meeting in which the Trustees voted to terminate Dorothy Mason. 

Plaintiffs are unaware of any possible basis for these charges and allege that none exists. 

324. Plaintiffs allege that these charges are frivolous and groundless, and Marshal 

Ferritto filed them in furtherance of the Conspiracy’s desire to retaliate against Chubbuck for his 

perceived opposition to the Water Conduit and his reporting of Marshal Ferritto’s sexual 

harassment to the Crowley County District Attorney. 

Ferritto Admits to Plan to Take Chubbuck Down 

325. In the moments before a Trustee meeting on June 27, 2011, Marshal Ferritto 

eliminated any possible doubt as to his true plans for Chubbuck. Prior to Chubbuck’s arrival for 

the meeting, Ferritto spoke with newly appointed Trustee Gerry Barber in the Council Chambers. 

Pointing to Chubbuck’s still-vacant chair at the Council dais, Ferritto said “I’m going to get that 

son of a bitch.” 

326. In a public statement during the meeting itself, Ferritto said that Chubbuck had 

attempted to get his son in trouble with the military and directly accused him of political 

corruption. 

327. These allegations are false. Chubbuck made no such call and was in fact unaware 

that Ferritto’s son (whose name Chubbuck even now does not know) was even in the military. 

Chubbuck is not corrupt. 

70


VIII. ALLEGATIONS PERTAINING TO THE DIETRICH FOSTER CHILDREN 

A. Background 

328. Since moving to Colorado with their three biological children in 2005, Karen and 

Michael Dietrich have provided temporary and long-term housing for two dozen foster children 

in urgent need of a home. 

329. In addition to the emergency placements that they house for a day or two at a 

time, the Dietrichs are – as of the date of this Complaint – providing long-term foster housing to 

four siblings, ranging from five to ten years old. The siblings have lived with the Dietrichs for 

more than a year. 

330. The family now also includes four adopted children, ranging in age from two to 

eight years old. The Dietrichs fostered all four children for varying periods of time prior to 

adoption. 

331. Plaintiff C.D., a six-year-old girl, is one of the Dietrichs’ adopted children. Karen 

and Michael Dietrich fostered C.D. and her younger brother N.D., who has Down Syndrome, for 

two years before their adoptions were finalized in June 2011. 

332. C.D. suffers from several emotional disorders as a result of the emotional, 

physical and sexual abuse that she suffered at the hands of her birth mother and her boyfriend, 

including Mood Disorder, Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder, and Reactive Attachment Disorder 

(“RAD”). 4 

4 Reactive Attachment Disorder is a severe and relatively uncommon disorder that affects certain 

children who have suffered from neglect and abuse at an early age. Children with RAD are unable to interact 

socially in a developmentally appropriate way, demonstrating either an extreme reluctance to engage others, or an 

excessive familiarity with strangers. 

71


333. In addition, her birth mother and grandmother had a history of mental illness, and 

her birth mother admitted to abusing drugs and alcohol while pregnant with C.D. 

334. From the time that they entered the foster system in July 2008 until they came to 

the Dietrichs’ house in September 2009, C.D. and N.D. lived with seven different foster families. 

Of those seven foster homes, C.D. and N.D. were removed from two following allegations of 

abuse, asked to leave another because C.D. was alleged to have been aggressive with other 

children in the home, and were removed from one more because the foster family couldn’t 

handle their needs. 

B. The First Complaint: Kids Campus & Annette Boone 

335. On August 25, 2009, a few days before moving into the Dietrich home, C.D. 

began attending Crowley County Child Care Center, commonly known as “Kids Campus,” one 

of the few state-licensed local day care centers. 

336. The Executive Director of Kids Campus is Judy Rusher, who is married to 

Ordway Mayor Kelli Jo Rusher’s cousin. Annette Boone was a paraprofessional at the day care 

at all times relevant to this complaint. 

Kids Campus Reports Boone’s Allegations to DHS 

337. On December 14, 2009, Kids Campus Executive Director Judy Rusher called the 

Colorado Department of Human Services (“DHS”) to relay Annette Boone’s concerns that C.D. 

was being abused by the Dietrichs. 

338. Boone stated that C.D. was arriving at day care unkempt and that Karen Dietrich 

was punishing C.D. by forcing the girl to wear a pair of dirty pull-ups – even though she had 

been potty trained for several weeks – and would not allow Boone to change them. 

72


339. Also according to Boone, C.D. had said that Karen Dietrich had told her that all 

she would be getting for Christmas was a “big lump of coal” because she was “really, really 

bad.” 

340. Finally, Boone reported suspected sexual abuse by Michael Dietrich, saying that 

C.D. would throw a “major fit” when Michael Dietrich would come to pick her up “to the point 

she states that she does not want to go and for him not to touch her.” As a result of these 

incidents, Boone reported that Michael Dietrich had stopped coming to pick up C.D. about a 

month previously, and the girl was now picked up by the Dietrich’s oldest daughter, T.J. 

Dietrich. 

C.D. and N.D. Removed from Dietrich Home 

341. Because of the severity of the allegations concerning the Dietrichs, which were 

classified as physical neglect, emotional abuse and sexual abuse, DHS ordered C.D. and her 

younger brother N.D. immediately removed from the home pending the outcome of an 

investigation. 

342. The children were taken on December 16, 2009. Helping C.D. to pack, Karen 

Dietrich told her that she needed to stay in another foster home for a few days because she and 

Michael Dietrich had to “do something to the house.” Although Karen Dietrich reassured C.D. 

that she would be coming right back, C.D. still pleaded: “Mom, I will listen better when I come 

back.” 

343. The investigation was referred to child welfare workers in neighboring Bent 

County, Colorado, as Crowley, Otero and Pueblo County personnel were conflicted because of 

their relationship with Karen Dietrich. Because the investigators had farther to travel and were 

73


unfamiliar with C.D. and the Dietrichs, the investigation took longer than it otherwise should 

have. 

344. Karen Dietrich was simultaneously distraught over the removal of “her babies” 

and worried about her father in California, who was suffering from colon cancer and was 

separately scheduled to undergo an emergency quadruple bypass. Once her father was 

discharged from the hospital, Dietrich bought a ticket to California, as her family did not think he 

was going to live much longer. Dietrich had only just bought a ticket to fly out on December 

17th to help care for him when she found out that the state was launching an investigation into 

the allegations raised by Annette Boone. 

DHS Investigates Boone’s Complaint 

345. Over the course of two days, a team of DHS investigators interviewed C.D., her 

therapist, the Dietrichs, Annette Boone, and several other adults who had been present in the 

Dietrich home since C.D. and N.D. had moved in. 

346. According to the interview summaries included in the 20-page investigation 

report, none provided any information that substantiated any of the concerns raised by Boone. 

347. Boone’s own statements to investigators made clear, however, that her complaint 

was fundamentally rooted in her disagreement with Karen Dietrich’s parenting decisions. 

Dietrich and Boone had previously clashed over Dietrich’s perception that Boone was “super 

religious and punitive” in a way that she believed was detrimental to C.D.’s emotional recovery. 

348. For example, as explained by the Dietrichs and corroborated by C.D., the girl’s 

matted hair was the apparent result of Dietrich permitting C.D. to brush and braid her own hair, 

as C.D. wanted. 

74


349. Although Judy Rusher had specifically instructed Boone to abide by Dietrich’s 

wishes with regard to C.D.’s grooming, Annette Boone told investigators that, even though C.D. 

told her that “she braided it herself . . ., she cannot help but take care of [C.D.].” 

DHS Determines Boone Report to be Unfounded, Children Returned to the Home 

350. The investigators from the Bent County Department of Human Services 

concluded their interviews on December 18, 2009 and cleared the children to be returned to the 

Dietrich home. Unfortunately, when Michael Dietrich picked them up, Karen Dietrich could not 

be there because she had left for California to care for her father. 

351. Noting that the Dietrichs had been “very cooperative with the investigation and 

were eager to get [C.D.] back in the home,” the DHS report concluded that the allegations were 

“unfounded for sexual abuse, emotional abuse and neglect.” Boone’s report concerning possible 

sexual abuse turned out to be largely based on two incidents that occurred at Kids Campus in the 

first weeks of C.D.’s time at the facility, either before the Dietrichs began fostering C.D. or only 

very early in the girl’s stay in the house. There had been no subsequent incidents. 

352. Although not noted in the investigation report, because of C.D.’s emotional 

problems and abusive family history, Dietrich and child welfare workers met with Kids Campus 

personnel during the first weeks of C.D.’s enrollment there in order to make sure they were 

armed with all the information they would need to appropriately handle C.D.’s emotional and 

psychological needs. 

353. On information and belief, Annette Boone had access to and was aware of the 

information provided to Kids Campus regarding C.D.’s prior emotional, physical and sexual 

abuse. 

75


C. Additional Complaints: Dawn Scheck 

354. With the investigation complete and considering the matter resolved, the Dietrichs 

focused again on taking care of their foster children. 

355. On February 19, 2010, however, the Dietrichs were on a trip to Glenwood 

Springs, where Karen Dietrich was attending a Colorado City and County Managers Association 

conference, when they got a call from Pam Morgan, the family’s contact at Top of the Trail, Inc. 

their child placement agency. Morgan told Dietrich that Top of the Trail’s Director Beth 

Johnston had received a call the previous day regarding the Dietrichs. 

356. The caller identified herself as “Dawn from Pueblo” and represented herself to be 

an investigator for the Court Appointed Special Advocates (“CASA”). Noting that caller ID 

showed her to be calling from Ordway, CO, Johnston became suspicious about whether Dawn 

was really a CASA investigator. 

357. Before attempting to convince the Director that the previous investigation had 

been bungled and needed to be reopened during this phone call, Scheck provided specific and 

highly personal details regarding C.D. and Karen and Michael Dietrich, all of which were 

reported in the course of the December 2009 investigation. 

358. The Ordway telephone number that appeared on Johnston’s caller ID is the same 

as the one listed for Dawn Scheck in the phone book. 

359. Dawn Scheck is not, and was not then, affiliated with CASA, DHS, any county’s 

child welfare program, or any law enforcement agency. As a result, she could not have had 

legally authorized access to either C.D.’s foster care information or any investigation report. 

76


360. In addition, Scheck has never been to the Dietrich household and has had no 

contact with C.D. Therefore, she has no, and could have no, personal knowledge of C.D.’s 

condition. 

361. As concluded by Top of the Trail, Inc. staff, the detailed confidential information 

disclosed by Scheck in the course of that phone call with Johnston could only have originated 

with Annette Boone. 

362. Upon information and belief, through this phone call to the Director and a 

separate complaint that she alleged during the phone call to have previously filed, Scheck 

intended that a new investigation be initiated, which she knew or should have known was 

substantially likely to result in the temporary or permanent removal of C.D. and her brother from 

the Dietrich home. 

363. Upon information and belief, Scheck placed at least one and perhaps two phone 

calls to the state DHS and/or Bent County Department of Human Services in an effort to have 

them investigate the Dietrichs again. 

364. Upon information and belief, the Bent County DHS did in fact review the Dietrich 

file upon receiving Scheck’s complaint or complaints but decided against undertaking an 

additional investigation of the Dietrich family. 

365. Dawn Scheck and Annette Boone have been close friends since high school. 

Since moving to Ordway several years ago, Carrie Steele-Collins has become very close with 

both Scheck and Boone. 

77


366. Upon information and belief, Steele-Collins asked Scheck to make the complaints 

identified in paragraphs 354 through 361 to further the Conspirators’ scheme to retaliate against 

Karen Dietrich for her opposition to LAVWCD and the Conduit. 

D. Carrie Steele-Collins Harasses a Five-Year-Old Foster Child 

Background 

367. Like the Dietrichs, Larry and Carrie Steele-Collins are not Ordway natives. The 

Collins moved to Ordway from Colorado Springs only a year or two prior to the Dietrich’s 

arrival in 2005. 

368. Initially, the Collins, like the Moores, appreciated Dietrich for her knowledge of 

water law and thought she could help the town navigate the complex legal and technical water 

issues. 

369. The relationship soured, however, almost immediately after the County sued the 

Town. Just as Peter Moore proved to be more of a representative of LAVWCD’s interests than 

Ordway’s, Larry Collins, who has long harbored an interest in running for County 

Commissioner, consistently advocated for the County’s positions. 

370. As it became clear that Dietrich would fight Collins’ efforts to undermine the 

litigation with the County and would not compromise on her opposition to the Water Conduit 

that was so precious to both Peter and Nancy Moore, the Collins abandoned any initial reluctance 

and undertook what sometimes resembled an all-out war. 

371. Indeed, while the Collins were prone to gossiping and spreading rumors about the 

real and perceived misdeeds of community members they perceived as not politically supportive, 

they took their campaign to take down Dietrich to another level altogether. 

78


372. They boasted to community members about the in-depth investigation they were 

conducting into Dietrich’s background and freely bragged that, while they hadn’t yet figured out 

how to get rid of her, they’d find a way. 

373. While it was not Carrie Steele-Collins who sat on the Town Council but her 

husband Larry Collins, the pair presented themselves as the Town’s leading couple and a 

political team. 

374. Larry Collins’ reputation and success as a Trustee was thus of immense 

importance to Carrie Steele-Collins, whose relative lack of education, and low status occupation 

(bus driver) were unlikely to augment her social standing. Steele-Collins craved the respect and 

social standing that came with Larry Collins’ trustee position. 

375. Indeed, Steele-Collins has clung tightly to Larry Collins, who is 27 years her 

senior, since he plucked her from the Colorado Springs bar she was tending in 2000. Back then, 

Steele-Collins was plagued by persistent money troubles and failed relationships with her 

children’s fathers. Less than a year later, her husband of eight-years was on his way to state 

prison to begin serving his twenty year sentence and Steele-Collins’ children had a new father. 

376. Ordway is a small town, small enough for the Collins to pass themselves off as 

leading citizens, at least thus far. When Dietrich came along, the Collins sensed a threat that 

needed to be crushed. Carrie Steele-Collins accepted that as a personal mission and attacked 

Dietrich in every place and in every way she could. 

377. Karen Dietrich was a public official and was accustomed to personal attacks. In 

comparison, Dietrich’s foster daughter C.D. was the easiest yet most sensitive of targets, and 

Steele-Collins did not let the opportunity pass. 

79


Carrie Collins: The First Incident 

378. Although now the Transportation Coordinator for the Crowley County School, 

District Carrie Steele-Collins began out at the District as a bus driver. 

379. On information and belief, Steele-Collins was removed from her bus driving 

duties after one or more urinalysis tests revealed the presence of drugs in her system. She was 

subsequently reassigned as a bus aide, in which position she was responsible for accompanying a 

special education student on his daily bus ride to school. 

380. That responsibility required Steele-Collins to ride the same bus as the Dietrich 

children, including C.D. 

381. At the beginning of October 2010, Steele-Collins began sitting next to C.D. at 

every available opportunity. C.D. was five years old at the time. 

382. Upon information and belief, Steele-Collins possessed detailed information 

regarding C.D. and the Dietrichs that could only have originated with Annette Boone – although 

Steele-Collins may have learned it second-hand from Dawn Scheck. 

383. Over the course of several days, Steele-Collins pressed C.D. progressively harder 

for information concerning her own history and her time in the Dietrich house. Aware of C.D.’s 

particularly delicate emotional condition, Steele-Collins also attempted to discolor C.D.’s 

positive view of her adoptive family by disparaging the Dietrichs’ characters and repeatedly 

suggesting to C.D. that she was being physically and sexually abused by Karen and Michael 

Dietrich. 

384. The comments made over the course of nearly a week and a half profoundly upset 

C.D.’s delicate emotional condition. On several occasions other children on the bus noticed that 

80


C.D. began to cry during conversations with Steele-Collins. When another of the Dietrich’s 

young foster children asked C.D. what was wrong during one of those conversations, Steele- 

Collins told her to “never mind” and to return to her seat. 

385. The Dietrichs discovered what Steele-Collins had been doing on October 6, 2010, 

when Karen and T.J. Dietrich waited at the end of their rural road for the school bus to arrive 

because Karen Dietrich wanted to speak with the bus driver about another foster child who 

would be moving in with the family. When C.D. got off the bus, she was upset but refused to 

say what was wrong. 

386. Another of the Dietrich foster children, who had also been on the bus that day, 

told Karen and T.J. Dietrich that C.D. was upset because Carrie Steele-Collins had been sitting 

next to her on the bus and pushing her hard for information. 

387. When Karen Dietrich asked C.D. what she had talked about with Steele-Collins, 

C.D. responded: “bad things.” When Dietrich asked what kind of bad things, C.D. began to cry 

hysterically and ran down the stairs to her room. 

388. After C.D. disappeared downstairs, the other foster child, who was eight or nine 

years old at the time, told the rest of what she had seen: 

Carrie Collins started talking to [C.D.]. She asked [C.D.] if her 

parents hit her or disciplined her. She also asked if [Michael 

Dietrich] touched her in the wrong way. [C.D.] said no for every 

question. She asked if she liked this foster home. Carrie wanted to 

know why [C.D.] was in foster care and [C.D.] told her that she 

was living with [her mother and her mother’s boyfriend] and that 

[her mother’s boyfriend] had touched her in the wrong place so she 

went to live with [another foster parent]. 

Some questions Carrie kept asking until [C.D.] would answer. 

Others she just let go. When Carrie asked [C.D.] if [Michael 

Dietrich] touched her in the wrong place, [C.D.] said No. When 

81


Carrie asked [C.D.] if she liked this home, [C.D.] said yes. [C.D.] 

said yes that [her mother’s boyfriend] did touch her in the wrong 

place when Carrie asked her again. 

After [C.D.] told Carrie about the touching, Carrie asked [C.D.] if 

she liked the people in our house and [C.D.] said no. 

Statement of M.J. regarding October 6, 2010 incident. 

389. As they tried to calm her down that night, C.D. told Karen and Michael Dietrich 

that “she was bad so she could not live with us anymore” and that she deserved to go back to live 

with her mother and even her mother’s boyfriend – the man that had abused her sexually. 

390. The next day, Karen and Michael Dietrich drove all of the children to school 

themselves to protect them from Steele-Collins and so they could speak with Pam Arbuthnot, the 

elementary school principal (who is also a plaintiff in this lawsuit). Pam Arbuthnot was not in 

yet, so the Dietrichs spoke instead to Superintendent of Schools Scott Cuckow and C.D.’s 

teacher, Deanna Brewer. 

391. Cuckow told the Dietrichs that he would not take any disciplinary action against 

Steele-Collins or even remove Steele-Collins from the bus, but would ask her to not talk to the 

Dietrich children. Cuckow called the Dietrichs later that day and said that Steele-Collins had 

agreed not to talk to the Dietrich children on the bus anymore. 

Carrie Collins: The Second Incident 

392. While by no means satisfied with Cuckow’s response, the Dietrichs assumed that 

the issue with Carrie Steele-Collins had been resolved, at least for the time being. 

393. In January 2011, however, the Dietrichs learned that Steele-Collins had again 

begun harassing their children. 

82


394. Although the harassment had been going on for some time prior to January 2011, 

the young children were too afraid of Steele-Collins to mention anything. On January 10, 2011, 

however, T.J. Dietrich’s boyfriend’s 14-year-old brother, B.V., of whom the boyfriend had just 

won custody, rode the bus with the Dietrich children for the first time. 

395. Upon returning to the Dietrich’s home that afternoon, B.V. asked T.J. Dietrich 

who the “crazy redhead” on the bus was. The teenager said that the redhead, who T.J. Dietrich 

knew to be Steele-Collins, had been “yelling and being really mean to the [Dietrich kids], 

especially [C.D.].” B.V. said that he confronted Steele-Collins about yelling at the elementary- 

aged girls and that she moved him to the front of the bus in response. 

396. In addition, B.V. said that during his January 10, 2011 bus ride, Steele-Collins 

had abused the special needs boy for whom she was responsible. When the child, who was 

strapped into his seat, made what Steele-Collins perceived to be too much noise, she would yell 

at him to “shut up!” According to B.V., when the disabled boy continued to talk, “she grabbed 

his face and said, ‘I told you to shut up!’“ 

397. The Dietrichs also learned that in the days before January 10, 2011, Steele-Collins 

had begun violating the terms of her previous agreement not to harass C.D. and the other 

Dietrich children. According to both B.V. and several of the other older students on the bus, 

Steele-Collins had again begun to sit next to and try to speak with C.D. and now also the other 

Dietrich children whenever possible. 

398. After hearing that Carrie Steele-Collins had fallen back into her bad habits, the 

Dietrichs on January 11, 2011 again dropped in to see the Superintendent. Cuckow said that he 

would look into it and get back to them. 

83


399. Cuckow called back later that day and told Karen Dietrich that she and Michael 

needed to come down as soon as possible because their children “were lying about the whole 

thing.” 

400. Cuckow called again early in the morning of January 12, 2011. Karen Dietrich 

picked up. “He told me again that my children were lying and that I had to listen to him now 

because we were going to do what he said. He said that he knew about my history with Carrie 

and that he would not tolerate it.” Upset at being told that her children were liars, Karen Dietrich 

hung up on him. 

401. Terrified that further interaction with Steele-Collins could permanently erase any 

small steps that C.D. had made toward overcoming the physical, emotional and sexual abuse that 

she had suffered before entering the foster system, Karen Dietrich put in a call to Pam Arbuthnot 

to ask if there was anything she could do to make sure C.D. and Steele-Collins would no longer 

share a bus. 

402. Pam Arbuthnot agreed that Dietrich’s request was reasonable and, within an hour, 

had arranged to shift the bus routes slightly so as to permit the Dietrich children to ride a 

different bus. While Cuckow gave his tentative approval, he sent word that he wanted to meet 

with the Dietrichs face to face the next morning, January 13, 2011, in order to finalize the 

arrangement. 

84


The Dietrichs Meet with Cuckow 

403. The next morning, Karen and Michael Dietrich, accompanied by their daughter 

T.J. Dietrich, went to meet with Cuckow. Since Cuckow had accused their children of lying 

about Steele-Collins, the Dietrichs had asked T.J. to come along because she had spoken with 

several other children on the bus who’d confirmed B.V.’s account of the incident. 

404. Attending with Cuckow, who is also the principal of the Middle School, were the 

principals of the elementary school, Pam Arbuthnot, and the high school, Lisa Bauer. 

405. Cuckow told the Dietrichs that although there had been a video camera on the bus 

carrying Steele-Collins and the Dietrichs’ children, it had malfunctioned and the tape had been 

destroyed. Cuckow then said that the district would purchase a new camera system to set up on 

the Dietrich children’s bus. 

406. To that, T.J. Dietrich volunteered that it might make more sense to put the camera 

system on Steele-Collins’ bus. Cuckow became very upset at T.J.’s suggestion, loudly asking 

what she was suggesting and demanding to know “who are you and why are you here?” 

407. Never ones to appreciate the abuse of their children, the Dietrichs stood up and 

left, followed – much to their chagrin – by a still yelling Cuckow. 

408. On information and belief, neither Cuckow nor the School Board ever 

investigated the Dietrichs’ complaints regarding Carrie Steele-Collins. 

85


FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF 

(42 U.S.C. § 1983, First Amendment Retaliation – Freedom of Speech – 

Against All Defendants Except Crowley County Board of Education, Scott Cuckow, and Kids 

Campus – By Plaintiffs Karen Dietrich, Lynn Chubbuck, Amber Decker, and Julie Decker) 

409. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate herein all other paragraphs of this Complaint 

for purposes of this claim. 

410. Dietrich, Chubbuck, and Amber & Julie Decker engaged in speech activities 

protected by the First Amendment regarding several matters of public concern involving the 

allocation of the Town’s valuable water rights and misconduct on the part of Ordway’s Town 

Marshal and other officials. Plaintiffs Chubbuck and Decker also engaged in the constitutionally 

protected activity of petitioning for redress. 

411. Dietrich, Chubbuck, and Amber & Julie Decker’s speech was not expressed 

during the ordinary course of their job responsibilities. 

412. While acting under color of law, Defendants have intentionally retaliated and 

continue to intentionally retaliate against Dietrich, Chubbuck, and Amber & Julie Decker 

through the retaliatory actions outlined in the preceding sections. 

413. Dietrich, Chubbuck, and Amber & Julie Decker’s protected speech was a 

substantial or motivating factor in the Defendants’ decision to retaliate against them. But for this 

speech, the Defendants would not have retaliated against these Plaintiffs. 

414. Defendants’ conduct violated Dietrich, Chubbuck, and Amber & Julie Decker’s 

clearly established rights of which reasonable persons in Defendants’ positions should have been 

aware. 

415. The aforementioned conduct represented the official custom, policy or practice of 

the Ordway Trustees, LAVWCD, and the Crowley County School District Board of Education. 

86


416. The individual capacity Defendants’ conduct was willful and wanton and was 

engaged in maliciously or with reckless disregard or callous indifference to Plaintiffs’ protected 

rights. 

417. Defendants’ wrongful acts caused Plaintiffs Karen Dietrich, Lynn Chubbuck, and 

Amber & Julie Decker to suffer injuries that would chill a person of ordinary firmness from 

continuing to engage in such constitutionally protected activity. 

SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF 

(42 U.S.C. § 1983, First Amendment Retaliation – Freedom of Association – 

Against All Defendants Except The Crowley County Board of Education, Scott Cuckow, and 

Kids Campus – By Bart Arbuthnot, Blenda Arbuthnot, Blaine Arbuthnot, Pam Arbuthnot, 

Amber Decker, Julie Decker, and Dorothy Mason) 



By Plaintiffs Bart Arbuthnot, Blenda Arbuthnot, Blaine Arbuthnot, and Pam Arbuthnot 

419. Plaintiffs Bart Arbuthnot, Blenda Arbuthnot, Blaine Arbuthnot, and Pam 

Arbuthnot (collectively the “Arbuthnots”) have exercised and continue to exercise their First 

Amendment rights of political and intimate association with Lynn Chubbuck. 

420. The intimate humane relationship allegation is premised upon the close familial 

relationship between Chubbuck and the Arbuthnots. Pam Arbuthnot is Chubbuck’s sister, and 

Blaine Arbuthnot is the long-time manager of Chubbuck Motors. Bart Arbuthnot grew up in 

Ordway and returns frequently with his wife Blenda. Bart and Blenda maintain a close familial 

relationship with Bart’s brother Blaine, his wife Pam, and her brother Lynn Chubbuck. 

Ordway. 

421. The Arbuthnots’ close familial relationship with Chubbuck is well known in 

87


422. Defendants’ retaliatory acts toward the Arbuthnots (as described above) were and 

continue to be undertaken in an effort to interfere with the Arbuthnots’ freedom of intimate 

familial association with Chubbuck so as to deter Chubbuck from exercising his own expressive 

freedoms by isolating him from his family. 

423. Defendants’ also sought to punish the Arbuthnots for their political association 

with Chubbuck. As is clear from Marshal Ferritto’s comment to Scott Cuckow on March 14, 

2011, Defendants viewed the Arbuthnots and Chubbucks as a powerful political alliance that 

needed to be broken apart. Defendants, therefore, retaliated and continue to retaliate against 

each of the Arbuthnots on the basis of their political association with Chubbuck and each other. 

424. The Arbuthnots’ political association with Lynn Chubbuck related to matters of 

public concern. 

425. Defendants’ retaliatory actions were taken under color of law. 

426. The Arbuthnots’ protected intimate and political association with Chubbuck was a 

substantial or motivating factor in the Defendants’ decision to retaliate against them. But for this 

association, the Defendants would not have retaliated against these Plaintiffs. 

427. Defendants’ conduct violated the Arbuthnots’ clearly established rights of which 

reasonable persons in Defendants’ positions should have been aware. 


the Ordway Trustees. 


engaged in maliciously or with reckless disregard or callous indifference to Plaintiffs’ protected 

rights. 

88


430. Defendants’ wrongful acts caused the Arbuthnots to suffer injuries that would 

chill a person of ordinary firmness from continuing to engage in such constitutionally protected 

activity. 

By Plaintiff Julie Decker 

431. Plaintiff Julie Decker has exercised and continues to exercise her First 

Amendment rights of political association with Lynn Chubbuck and Karen Dietrich. 

432. Defendants’ sought to punish Julie Decker for her political association with 

Chubbuck and Dietrich. 

433. Decker’s political association with Chubbuck and Dietrich was and is premised 

upon their common interest in matters of public concern – disclosing and ending the 

improprieties and corruption on the part of certain past and current Ordway employees and 

Trustees. 


435. Decker’s political association with Chubbuck and Dietrich was a substantial or 

motivating factor in the Defendants’ decision to retaliate against her. But for these associations, 

the Defendants would not have retaliated against Decker. 

436. Defendants’ conduct violated Decker’s clearly established rights of which 




89



engaged in maliciously or with reckless disregard or callous indifference to Julie Decker’s 

protected rights. 

439. Defendants’ wrongful acts caused Decker to suffer injuries that would chill a 

person of ordinary firmness from continuing to engage in such constitutionally protected activity. 

By Plaintiff Dorothy Mason 

440. Plaintiff Dorothy Mason has exercised and continues to exercise her First 

Amendment rights of political association with Lynn Chubbuck and Karen Dietrich. 

and Dietrich. 

441. Defendants’ sought to punish Mason for her political association with Chubbuck 

442. Mason’s political association with Chubbuck and Dietrich was and is premised 

upon their common interest in matters of public concern – disclosing and ending the 

improprieties and corruption on the part of certain past and current Ordway employees and 

Trustees. 


444. Mason’s political association with Chubbuck and Dietrich was a substantial or 

motivating factor in the Defendants’ decision to retaliate against her. But for these associations, 

the Defendants would not have retaliated against Mason. 

445. Defendants’ conduct violated Mason’s clearly established rights of which 




90



engaged in maliciously or with reckless disregard or callous indifference to Mason’s protected 

rights. 

448. Defendants’ wrongful acts caused Mason to suffer injuries that would chill a 

person of ordinary firmness from continuing to engage in such constitutionally protected activity. 

By Plaintiff Amber Decker 

449. Plaintiff Amber Decker has exercised and continues to exercise her First 

Amendment rights of intimate association with her mother, Julie Decker. 

450. The intimate humane relationship allegation is premised upon the close familial 

relationship between Amber and Julie Decker. 

451. Defendants’ retaliatory acts toward Amber Decker (as described above) were and 

continue to be undertaken in an effort to interfere with the Amber Decker’s freedom of intimate 

familial association with Julie Decker so as to deter Julie Decker from exercising her own 

expressive freedoms by isolating her from her family. 


453. Amber Decker’s protected intimate and political association with her mother Julie 

Decker was a substantial or motivating factor in the Defendants’ decision to retaliate against her. 

But for this association, the Defendants would not have retaliated against Amber Decker. 

454. Defendants’ conduct violated Amber Decker’s clearly established rights of which 




91



engaged in maliciously or with reckless disregard or callous indifference to Amber Decker’s 

protected rights. 

457. Defendants’ wrongful acts caused Amber Decker to suffer injuries that would 

chill a person of ordinary firmness from continuing to engage in such constitutionally protected 

activity. 

By Plaintiff C.D. 

458. Plaintiff C.D. has exercised and continues to exercise her First Amendment rights 

of intimate association with Karen Dietrich. 

459. The intimate human relationship allegation is premised upon the close familial 

relationship between C.D. and Dietrich, her adopted mother. 

460. Defendants’ acts toward C.D. (as described above) were and continue to be 

undertaken in an effort to interfere with C.D.’s freedom of intimate familial association with 

Dietrich so as to deter Dietrich from exercising her own expressive freedoms by isolating her 

from her daughter. 


462. C.D.’s protected intimate political association with Dietrich was a substantial or 

motivating factor in the Defendants’ decision to retaliate against her. But for this association, the 

Defendants would not have retaliated against C.D. 

463. Defendants’ conduct violated C.D.’s clearly established rights of which 


92



engaged in maliciously or with reckless disregard or callous indifference to Plaintiff’s protected 

rights. 

465. Defendants’ wrongful acts caused C.D. to suffer injuries that would chill a person 

of ordinary firmness from continuing to engage in such constitutionally protected activity. 

THIRD CLAIM FOR RELIEF 

(42 U.S.C. § 1983, Conspiracy – Against All Defendants Except The Crowley County Board of 

Education, Scott Cuckow, and Kids Campus – By All Plaintiffs) 



467. Defendants conspired and acted in concert to deprive Plaintiffs of the rights 

secured by the First Amendment. 

468. Defendants were aware of the goals and objectives of the conspiracy to retaliate 

against Plaintiffs, shared the common purpose and objectives of their co-conspirators, and 

intended to act together for the shared mutual benefit of the conspiracy. 

469. Several Defendants directly and personally retaliated against one or more of 

Plaintiffs for the exercise of their First Amendment rights, and in so doing, committed overt acts 

in furtherance of the conspiracy. 

470. Defendants’ continuing course of unlawful retaliatory conduct has caused 

substantial injury to Plaintiffs. 

471. Each Defendant is liable to Plaintiffs for compensatory damages, punitive 

damages, attorney’s fees and costs, and pre-judgment interest. 

93


FOURTH & FIFTH CLAIMS FOR RELIEF 

(Title II of the ADA; § 504 of the Rehabilitation Act: Discrimination Against a Qualified 

Individual with a Disability – Against Board of Education and Scott Cuckow – By C.D.) 

472. C.D. realleges and incorporates herein all other paragraphs of this Complaint for 

purposes of this claim. 

473. The Crowley County School District receives federal financial assistance such as 

to be subject to the requirements of Title II of the ADA and § 504 of the Rehabilitation Act. 

474. C.D. is a qualified individual with a disability within the meaning of Title II of the 

ADA and § 504 of the Rehabilitation Act. 

475. C.D. was otherwise qualified for participation in the education and transportation 

programs provided by the School District. 

476. On numerous occasions between September 2010 and January 2011, C.D. was 

subjected to manipulation and harsh emotional abuse by Steele-Collins, a bus aide entrusted with 

the care of another disabled child on the bus, who Steele-Collins appears to have also abused. 

477. Steele-Collins’ harassment and emotional abuse was specifically directed at C.D. 

by reason of her disability. Although Steele-Collins was primarily motivated to harm Karen 

Dietrich either by disclosing confidential information that she could discover through C.D. or 

causing Dietrich emotional distress as a result of her abuse of C.D., she focused her harassment 

upon C.D. because her disability (which was rooted in her past sexual, physical and emotional 

abuse) caused her to be excessively trusting of strangers and particularly easy to manipulate on 

an emotional level. 

478. The CCSD was informed and had actual knowledge of C.D.’s disability. 

94


479. Upon information and belief, the CCSD knew, or should have known, of Steele- 

Collins history of abusive conduct toward other disabled children that she was tasked with caring 

for as a bus aide. 

480. The CCSD was informed and had actual knowledge of Steele-Collins’ animosity 

toward the Dietrich family and of specific incidents of harassment of C.D by reason of her 

disability. 

481. The CCSD failed to take adequate steps to protect C.D. and other disabled 

children within the district from the continuing emotional abuse of one of its employees, despite 

being repeatedly informed of the dangers. 

482. C.D. has suffered severe psychological damage as a result of CCSD’s failure. 

SIXTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF 

(Extreme and Outrageous Conduct – Against Dawn Scheck – By Karen and Michael Dietrich) 

483. Plaintiffs Karen and Michael Dietrich reallege and incorporate herein all other 

paragraphs of this Complaint for purposes of this claim. 

484. On February 18, 2010, Scheck telephoned Beth Johnston, Karen and Michael 

Dietrich’s foster child placement agency director, and falsely represented herself to be an 

investigator for the Court Appointed Special Advocates. 

485. Before attempting to convince the Director that a previous DHS investigation had 

been bungled and needed to be reopened during this phone call, Scheck provided specific and 

highly personal details regarding C.D. and Karen and Michael Dietrich that were reported in the 

course of the December 2009 investigation. 

486. Scheck has never been to the Dietrich household and has had no contact with C.D. 

Therefore, she has no, and could have no, personal knowledge of C.D.’s condition. 

95


487. Through this phone call to the Director and a separate complaint that she alleged 

during the phone call to have previously filed, Scheck intended that a new investigation be 

initiated, which she knew or should have known was substantially likely to result in the 

temporary or permanent removal of C.D. and her profoundly disabled brother from the Dietrich 

home. 

488. These acts amount to extreme and outrageous conduct. 

489. Scheck undertook such acts recklessly or with the intent of causing Karen and 

Michael Dietrich severe emotional distress knowing that there was a substantial probability that 

her conduct would cause Karen and Michael Dietrich severe emotional distress. 

490. Scheck’s actions caused Karen and Michael Dietrich severe emotional distress. 

491. Because these actions were undertaken with a deliberate intent to harm Karen and 

Michael Dietrich, Scheck’s actions were willful and wanton. 

damages. 

492. Scheck is liable to Karen and Michael Dietrich for compensatory and punitive 

96


SEVENTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF 

(Public Disclosure of Private Facts – Against Boone and Kids Campus – By C.D., Karen 

Dietrich, and Michael Dietrich) 

493. Plaintiffs C.D., Karen Dietrich, and Michael Dietrich reallege and incorporate 

herein all other paragraphs of this Complaint for purposes of this claim. 

Against Annette Boone 

494. On information and belief, C.D., Karen Dietrich, and Michael Dietrich allege that 

Boone disclosed personal and private details regarding C.D., Karen Dietrich, and Michael 

Dietrich that she learned as a result of her employment at Kids Campus and through the 

December 14, 2009 complaint to Colorado’s DHS in which Boone alleged that C.D. was being 

deprived of necessities and subjected to emotional and sexual abuse. Those allegations, which 

prompted authorities to remove C.D. and another foster child from the Dietrich home for three 

days, were determined to be unfounded after a thorough investigation. 

495. On information and belief, C.D., Karen Dietrich, and Michael Dietrich allege that 

Boone disclosed these highly personal and private facts concerning C.D., Karen Dietrich, and 

Michael Dietrich to Scheck, Steele-Collins and a large number of other persons whose identities 

are as-yet unknown to Plaintiffs. 

496. These highly personal and private facts concerning C.D., Karen Dietrich, and 

Michael Dietrich were treated as strictly confidential by the Colorado Department of Human 

Services, the Dietrich’s foster child placement agency, the officials who performed the 

investigation, as well as Karen and Michael Dietrich. 

disclosed. 

497. Prior to the disclosure, the highly personal and private facts had not been publicly 

97


offensive. 

498. A reasonable person would find the disclosure of these facts to be extremely 

499. The personal and private facts disclosed – concerning a five-year old foster child 

and her foster family – were neither newsworthy nor of legitimate interest to the public. 

500. At the time of the disclosure, Boone knew or should have known that the facts 

disclosed were private. 

501. C.D., Karen Dietrich, and Michael Dietrich have been damaged by the public 

disclosure of these highly personal and private facts. 

employee. 

Against Kids Campus 

502. At all times relevant to this Complaint, Annette Boone was a Kids Campus 

503. At the time that Annette Boone undertook the acts described in paragraphs 335 

through 353 above, Boone was acting in the course and within the scope of her employment at 

Kids Campus. 

504. Boone’s tortious public disclosure of private facts caused injury to C.D., Karen 

Dietrich, and Michael Dietrich, and Kids Campus is vicariously liable therefore. 

EIGHTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF 

(Negligent Supervision – Against Kids Campus – By C.D., Karen Dietrich, and Michael 

Dietrich) 

505. Plaintiffs C.D., Karen Dietrich, and Michael Dietrich reallege and incorporate 

herein all other paragraphs of this Complaint for purposes of this claim. 

employee. 

506. At all times relevant to this Complaint, Annette Boone was a Kids Campus 

98


507. At the time that Annette Boone undertook the acts described above, Boone was 

acting in the course and within the scope of her employment at Kids Campus. 

508. Annette Boone’s past actions in disobeying Executive Director Judy Rusher’s 

instruction that she not touch C.D., in making an apparently unfounded complaint about abuse in 

the Dietrich home, and in expressing vehement disapproval of Karen and Michael Dietrich’s 

parenting style gave Kids Campus reason to know that Boone would harm the Dietrichs by 

misusing the extremely confidential information with which she had been entrusted by her 

employer. 

509. A reasonable employer would have inquired further into the depth of Boone’s 

feelings on the matter and taken steps adequate to prevent the disclosure of extremely sensitive 

information regarding a five-year-old sexual abuse victim and her foster parents. 

510. Kids Campus failed to take reasonable supervisory steps to prevent the disclosure 

of this information, causing substantial injury to C.D., Karen Dietrich, and Michael Dietrich. 

511. Kids Campus is liable to C.D., Karen Dietrich, and Michael Dietrich for all 

damages allowed by law. 

99


CLAIM NOT NOW ASSERTED, BUT WHICH PLAINTIFFS INTEND TO ASSERT IN A 

LATER AMENDMENT UPON COMPLIANCE WITH PROVISIONS OF COLORADO 

GOVERNMENTAL IMMUNITY ACT, §§ 24-10-101, et seq., C.R.S. 

(§ 18-8-708, C.R.S. Witness Intimidation and Retaliation – Against Marshal William Ferritto 

in his Individual Capacity – By Bart Arbuthnot, Blaine Arbuthnot, Blenda Arbuthnot, Pam 

Arbuthnot, Amber Decker, Julie Decker, and Lynn Chubbuck) 

512. Plaintiffs Lynn Chubbuck, Bart Arbuthnot, Blaine Arbuthnot, Blenda Arbuthnot, 

Pam Arbuthnot, Julie Decker, and Amber Decker reallege and incorporate herein all other 

paragraphs of this Complaint for purposes of this claim. 

513. Consistent with how the terms are defined in § 18-8-702, C.R.S., Bart Arbuthnot, 

Blaine Arbuthnot, Blenda Arbuthnot, Pam Arbuthnot, Lynn Chubbuck, Amber Decker, and Julie 

Decker are witnesses to, victims of, and/or family members of witnesses to and/or victims of, 

crimes perpetrated by Marshal William Ferritto, which have been previously reported to the 

District Attorney and are detailed in the preceding paragraphs. 

514. Any and all of the Plaintiffs identified in this section have knowledge of the 

existence or non-existence of facts relevant to a crime, and may be called to testify as a witness 

to or a victim of a crime perpetrated by William Ferritto. 

515. All of these Plaintiffs have suffered physical injury and property damages as a 

result of actions undertaken by Marshal Ferritto that constitute the intimidation of a witness or 

victim pursuant to § 18-8-704, C.R.S. (a class four felony) and/or retaliation against a witness or 

victim pursuant to § 18-8-706, C.R.S. (a class three felony). 

516. As a result of Ferritto’s acts of intimidation and retaliation, as detailed throughout 

this complaint, these plaintiffs will (upon amendment of this Complaint to assert this claim) be 

entitled to recover treble damages and their attorneys fees as set forth in § 18-8-708(2), C.R.S. 

100


517. Pursuant to the Colorado Governmental Immunity Act (“CGIA”), §§ 24-10-101, 

et seq., C.R.S., which undersigned counsel believes this claim to be subject to, a claimant is 

obligated to provide notice to the appropriate governmental parties within 180 days of the time 

he discovered his injuries. A claimant must then wait an additional 90 days from the notice date 

before filing suit. Strict compliance with the CGIA’s notice provisions is a jurisdictional bar to 

suit. 

518. Because Plaintiffs are extremely fearful of Marshal William Ferritto, they have 

delayed filing the aforementioned CGIA notice until such time as they were able to initiate the 

present lawsuit, and if it should prove necessary, request that this Court issue a protective order. 

519. Although the 180 day period will not expire for several weeks, Plaintiffs intend to 

submit the CGIA notice within days of the date of this Complaint, a copy of which undersigned 

Counsel will file with this Court. 

520. After the requisite 90 day waiting period has passed, Plaintiffs intend to amend, or 

request leave to amend, their Complaint pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(1) or (2), depending on 

the circumstance at the time. 

CONCLUSION 

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs respectfully request that this Court enter judgment on their 

behalf and against Defendants and award them: 

(a) Appropriate declaratory and other injunctive and/or equitable relief; 

(b) Compensatory and consequential damages, including damages for emotional 

distress, loss of reputation, humiliation, loss of enjoyment of life, and other pain 

and suffering on all claims allowed by law in an amount to be determined at trial; 

101


(c) All economic losses on all claims allowed by law; 

(d) Punitive and exemplary damages as allowed by law against the individual 

capacity defendants – Annette Boone, Larry Collins, William Ferritto, Peter 

Moore, Dawn Scheck, and Carrie Steele-Collins. 

(e) Attorney’s fees and the costs associated with this action, including those 

associated with having to defend against false criminal charges as well as expert 

witness fees on all claims allowed by law; 

(f) Pre- and post-judgment interest at the lawful rate; 

(g) Any further relief that this Court deems just and proper, and any other relief as 

allowed by law. 

102


Jury Demand 

PLAINTIFFS REQUEST A JURY TRIAL ON ALL ISSUES SO TRIABLE. 

Respectfully submitted this 27th day of July, 2011 

By: /s/ Adam M. Platt 

Adam M. Platt, #38046 

HALIFAX LEGAL LLC 

Tel.: (720) 335-5306 

Fax.: (314) 884-9082 

E-mail: aplatt@halifaxlegalllc.com 

Mailing Address: 

PO BOX 1917 

Denver, Colorado 80201 

Office Address: 

1500 West 47th Avenue 

Denver, Colorado 80211 

103 

Attorney for Plaintiffs


January 2008 to April 2008 

Mayor Randy Haynes 

Mayor Pro Tem Lynn Chubbuck 

Trustee Jason Torgler 

Trustee Larry Collins 

Trustee Dwight Davis 

Trustee John Love 

Trustee Robert Lowe 

April 2008 to April 2009 



Trustee Kelli Jo Rusher 


Trustee Dwight Davis 



April 2009 to June 2009 




Trustee Duane Grasmick 




June 2009 to April 2010 



Trustee Pat Cole 

Trustee Duane Grasmick 




April 2010 to August 2010 



Trustee Peter Moore 

Trustee William “Bill” Meyer 

APPENDIX A 

Chronological Listing of Ordway Trustees and Mayors 

104



Trustee John Morgan 


August 2010 

Mayor John Morgan 






September 2010 


Mayor Pro Tem Larry Collins 



Trustee Lynn Chubbuck 


October 2010 to May 2011 








May 2011 to June 2011 

Mayor Kelli Jo Rusher 






June 2011 to Present 

Mayor Kelli Jo Rusher 






105


Trustee Gerry Barber 

106

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE ... - Halifax Legal LLC

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?