Petition — Winslow v. Williams

wn ETLED

oe

16908

83 . 0 MAR S1 1984

No.

ALEXANDER L. STEVAS

IN THE —

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

Rainsford J. Winslow and Winifred W. Winslow,

Petitioners,

Vv.

KEITH D. WILLIAMS, ALMA JEAN WILLIAMS, DAMON

A. MCMAHAN, DOROTHY MCMAHAN, MARGARET E.

HARRINGTON, IRVIN R. KAISER, CAROLYN D. KAISER,

WILLIAM C. KROSKOB, HELEN P. KROSKOB, MARK R.

WEIMER, ARDITH WEIMER, D.E. STEGER, RICHARD H.

WATERS, ROSEMARY J. WATERS, BERNIE HODAPP,

ELAINE HODAPP, THOMAS WHEELER, ELEANOR WHEELER,

JOHN CONN CLATWORTHY, BARBARA BRETT CLATWORTHY,

KEITH L. GAY, DONNA J. GAY, LEE O'NEIL, STEVEN

B. ARMSTRONG, DEBORAH ARMSTRONG, DWIGHT MOODY,

MILDRED MOODY, JOHN F. FILLINGHAM, CHERYL A.

FILLINGHAM, CYNTHIA J. BLAKE, ANDREW W. BLAKE,

E. MILTON BINFORD,

Respondents,

MORGAN COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, ROBERT BAUER,

JOHN LINDELL, HENRY KAMMERZELL,

Respondents.

PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI

TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

TENTH CIRCUIT

Presented by:

Rainsford J. Winslow, Pro Se

Winifred W. Winslow, Pro Se

Morgan Heights, P.O. Box 250

Fort Morgan, Colorado 80701

Phone: (303) 867-6201

- je

QUESTIONS PRESENTED

1. Did the U.S. District Court err in not

reviewing the rights of more than 100 Morgan

Heights Absent Class Members who were given

no noticenor a hearing BEFORE Class certifi-

cation 11 Jun 80? (Seventy-One Class Mem-

bers, through testimony, affidavits, letters

to the Trial Court, or by signing “Opt-Out-

Forms" said they wanted no part of this Class.)

U.S. Const., Art. XIV

2. Did the U.S. District Court err by ig-

noring the pleas of these 71 Absent Class

Members, who are now faced with the possi-

bility of paying part of perhaps $350,000 in

legal fees? (This has put a cloud on their

property, because 4a new purchaser is also sub-

jected to possible legal fees because of the

way the Class is certified. (A few who sold,

had to escrow money to pay legal fees. Sev-

eral took less for their property because of

- ii-

the legal fee/class cloud.) U.S. Const.,

Art. XIV

3. Did the U.S. District Court err in not

granting the Winslows a new trial before an

impartial judge with a jury after reviewing

the Winslow REMOVAL PETITION? (The Winslows

attempted to disqualify the Morgan County

Trial Court Judge eight times; three times

in the Trial Court, two times in the Colo-

rado Court of Appeals, and three times inthe

Colorado Supreme Court--denied eight times.)

U.S. Const., Art. XIV

4. Did the U.S. District Court err in ig-

noring the fact that the Trial Court Judge

REWARDED anattorney/adversary who admitted

that he illegally hooked on to the Winslows'

sewer system by giving him a FREE sewer tap

when the other 12 on the system paid a tap

fee? Also, the same judge gave a FREE sewer

tap to another party later, who is an adver-

sary and competing land developer and is also

- iii -

a Named-Plaintiff against the Winslows.

U.S. Const., Art. V & XIV

5. Did the U.S. District Court err in ig-

noring the fact that the Court Reporter could

not provide a complete transcript of the

major part of the Morgan Heights case, and

this Court Reporter OMITTED prejudicial re-

marks by the Trial Court Judge? (On 8 Jun

83 the Colorado Court of Appeals demanded

that the Winslows purchase this incomplete

transcript at a cost of somewhere between

$10,000 and $15,900.) U.S. Const., Art. XIV

6. Did the U.S. District Court err in ig-

noring the fact that the Winslows questioned

the credibility of this Court Reporter be-

cause of these transcript problems in the

Trial Court, the Colorado Court of Appeals,

the Colorado Supreme Court, and the press,

which is alleged to have made tnis Court

Reporter biased and prejudiced against the

- iv -

Winslows? U.S. Const., Art. XIV

7. Did the U.S. District Court err in

ignoring the fact that the Winslows attempt-

ed to have two Declaratory Judgment Hearings

before a jury 10 Jan 83 and 8 Feb 83 on the

"Fair Trial/Impartial Judge" issue and the

"Transcript/Court Reporter Bias and Preju-

dice” issue? U.S. Const., Art. VII & XIV

8. Did the U.S. District Court err in not

giving the Winslowsa jury Nearing in the "Judge/Court

Reporter" issue which was requested in the RE-

MOVAL PETITION? U.S. Const., Art. VII & XIV

9. Did the U.S. District Court err in not

giving Defendants Winslow a Declaratory

Judgment Hearing with a jury, which was’ re-

quested in the REMOVAL PETITION? (Plaintiff

objected to REMOVAL PETITION which calls for

a hearing as per U.S. Supreme Court. Wilson

v. Republic, 257 U.S. 92.) U.S. Const.,

Art VII & XIV

ewe

10. Did the U.S. District Court err in not

ruling that ‘CRCP 38 is unconstitutional, be-

cause this rule does not require full dis-

closure with regard to jury option for civil

litigants. (The Winslows were given no jury

option by their attorney or the judge, which

is not required by CRCP 38.) U.S. Const.,

Art. VII & XIV

ll. Did the U.S. District Court err in not

ruling that CRCF 97, concerning disqualifica-

tion of judges in civil cases is unconstitu-

tional? (This gives the Criminal Defendant

an advantage the Civil Defendant does not get.)

U.S. Const., Art. XIV

12. Did the U.S. District Court err in not

recognizing racial equality between the Crim-

inal Defendant and the Civil Defendant? (The

Criminal Defendant has benefits weighted in

his favor as per CRCrP 21(b) and 23 concern-

ing disqualification of judges and juries.

- vi -

The Civil Defendant under CRCP 97 and 38,

the counterparts, do not get the same bene-

fits. Since there are proportionately more

Black/Chicano Criminal Defendants than White

Civil Defendants, there is racial discrimin-

ation. U.S. Const., Art. VI, VII, & XIV

13. Did the U.S. Court of Appeals err in

dismissing the Winslows' appeal on the ORDER

OF REMAND by the U.S. District Court back to

the Colorado Court of Appeals without review

since all of these U.S. Constitutional issues

were addressed in the Winslow REMOVAL PETI-

TION? (Since this is a Civil Rights case

and was filed under Title 28 USC 1443, such

cases are reviewable inthe U.S. Court of

Appeals as per Title 28 USC 1447(d), but was

not reviewed.) U.S. Const., Art. V, VI, VII,

& XIV

ie Ww

- vii -

Attorney General Notice

The Colorado Attorney General was given

notice as to the possible unconstitutionality

of two Colorado Rules of Civil Procedure,

namely CRCP 38 and CRCP 97. This was done as

per Colorado Appellate Rule 44, but the Colo-

rado Attorney General has not responded. As

per Title 28 USC 2403(b), the Colorado Attor-

new General will be served three copies of

this document.

* * +

THE YELLOW BROCHURE

The Morgan Heights YELLOW BROCHURE is a

piece of sales literature tucked in back of

this PETITION. It is the cause of this entire

legal quagmire started 21 Jun 79, nearly five

years ago and the only basis for a $250,000

Judgment against the Winslows. It was not

part of any Morgan Heights deed or contract.

The Trial Court Judge had this to say about

ee.

- viii -

it inthe Judgment of 5 Oct 82:

46. Proceeding now to the contrac-

tua! claims based upon the yellow

brochure and/or promissory estoppel,

the court finds that nothing in the

yellow brochure or its manner of dis-

tribution created any express inter-

grated contract with any class mem-

ber as it simply was not ever incor-

porated by reference or otherwise

into any contract of purchase between

any class members and Defendants

Winslow. Any contractural claim

based upon the yellow brochure

other than the restrictive coven-

ants therein must therefore pro-

ceed upon the theory of promissory

estoppel, if at all, because of the

Colorado Statute of Frauds, C.R.S.

38-10-108.

For the convenience of this Court, here is

the complete Colorado Statute:

C.R.S. 38-10-108. Contract For Interest

In Land Must Be Written. Every contract

for the leasing for a longer period than

one year, or for the sale of any lands

or interest in lands,is void unless the

contract or memorandum thereof expressing

the consideration is in writing and sub-

scribed by the party by whom the lease

_ Or sale is to be made.

Thus, even the Trial Court Judge recognized

that THE YELLOW BROCHURE was sales literature,

yet using his “estoppel theory,” put a $250,000 Re

- ix -

Judgment against the Winslows. No case law

was cited to back up this theory.

Attorney Raymond C. Johnson, represent-

ing the Winslows, told the judge something

like this: (In Open Court 10 Jan 83)

“your Honor, you are making up new law.

You have no basis for this judgment

other than THE YELLOW BROCHURE. There

is no estoppel case that comes close

to what you have done in this Winslow

case where a piece of sales literature

is binding unless incorporated into a

deed or contract, and you agreed."

The Trial Court Judge said: "Well, that's

the way itis in this Court." (The gist.)

The merits of this case are not at issue

in this PETITION, and this brief section of

this PETITION is incorporated simply to show

how unjust the Trial Court Judge was. What

is presented in this PETITION are severe

violations of U.S. Constitutional Rights.

-=§ xX =

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

QUESTIONS PRESENTED . .....-. i

Attorney General Notice... . vii

THE YELLOW BROCHURE ...... vii

OPINIONS/ORDERS BELOW ...... l

VUREGREGeree « 6 6 a's «ese 0% l

CONSTITUTIONAL AND STATUTORY

PROVISIONS INVOLVED ..... .« 2

INTRODUCTION . *. . . * . . . . . 3

STATEMENT OF THE CASE .... « e 5

No Fair Trial With Impartial

Judge . «6 8 «© « = ° 8

Judge Leh Rewards Criminal Act. ll

More Judicial Discrimination,

Partcei ity foes «6's ° 12

Judge Gives Away Winslow Land ° 13

Morgan Heights Class Issue .. 14

Conflict Within The Class... 18

Judge Richard B. Paynter

Letter ..-«.. . ‘. «te 23

Attorney Johnson's Partial

Motion ... = ake 25

Bias/ Prejudice of Court

Reporter. «<«-«s & es ee 26

Court Reporter Martin letter ° 28

The Winslow Removal Petition . 31

Senator Dodd Statement .... 32

ARGUMENTS FOR REMOVAL ..... .- 33

Old Case Backs Up Removal... 36

Disqualification Of Judge... 38

- xi-

Page

Legal Arguments On Transcript

fo eee ee ee es ee ee oe ee ae ee 40

REASONS FOR GRANTING REVIEW... . 43

CONC RUGEON - 6 “eels & © 0 * «'@ « 45

INDEX TO APPENDICES

APPENDIX A -- Order Of Remand

Issued By U.S. Dis-

trict Court, June

nlc Seago. & Mie ies 1-A

Minute Order from

U.S. District Court

denying Motion For

Reconsideration Of

Remand Order dated

July 29, 1983... 4-A

APPENDIX B

APPENDIX C

Opinion, U.S. Court

Of Appeals, dated

November 30, 1983 . 4-A

APPENDIX D -

Order, denial of

Petition For Re-

hearing by U.S.

Court Of Appeals,

dated January 5,

1984 a. ay @:)see. O64 46 6-A

- Motion/Memorandum

For Disqualification

of District Judge

with Affidavit,

filed November 28,

1980 oe £2. S see 7-A

APPENDIX E

- xii -

APPENDIX F -=- Schematic Map of

Morgan Heights

showing developers

within and outside

of Morgan Heights

and surrounding area

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

Anders-Hightower, Inc. v. Huie &

Son, 127 So. 21 « . . . . . . 7 .

Berger v. United States, 255 U.S.

22 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Bridgeport Ed. Assn. v. Zinner

415 F.Supp 715 . . « «© « « « « «

Calhoun v. U.S., 384 F.2d 180,

Cert. denied 414 U.S. 1024...

Carl Johnson v. District Court,

674 P.2d 952 ~ = ei onl cena va

Crenchik v. Mandell, 373 F.Supp

1298 . . . . *. * . * . * . 7. * *

Fowler v. Lindsay, 3 U.S. 4l1l ..

Gravitt v. Southwestern Bell Tele.

Co.» 430 U.S. 723 (1977) . . . .

Lyon v. Crabtree, 64 S.W. 2d 24 .

Mills v. Latham, 219 S.W. 2d, 609

Peltier v. Peltier, 548 F.2d 1083

©

Page

13-A

39,

40

34

42

40

- xiii -

People v. District Court, 560

P.2d 828 . . . . . 7 . 7 7 . .

Taylor v. Hays, 418 U.S. 488 ..

Thermtron Products, Inc. v. Her-

mansdorfer, 423 U.S. 336 (1976)

Wilson v. Republic, 257 U.S. 92

OTHER AUTHORITY

C.J.S., Appeal/Error § 1946 ..

Black's Law Dictionary,

5th Edition . . . 7. . . . . .

COLORADO /FEDERAL STATUTES

oe. ae 2 eee ae

OR OS ee eee

ae end 66 6 ea

i 2 Oe nd ele. a a

i a a

ee ae a a ee a

ee ee a ee

i Ss 2 6- el ore e: oe:

2 & a ae ee ©

28 USC 2403 . . . . . . * . .

Page

42

37

- xiv -

COLORADO COURT RULES

Page

CHEE BS 4c 0S wrate © 6-4. 5 3,21,22

Cae om cit l’e ¢ 6 @ + ee 8 v,7

Chie OF ol t& 6 & 6 et oe 6 oe SDs ee

Cee O9beS & a oe he ewe ee 12

CREEP S340) «6 we eo 8 0 6 es 10,38

CRGE 2@ «6 «© 2 @ 6 6 » 6 8 6 v,10

CcMsRe 6 2 oc 0 'h 6 0 6 ee vii

UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION

Fifth Amendment (in relevant

BESGE +t © & 6 Be @ ‘SS fe i-vi

Sixth Amendment (in relevant

DAECy..& « 2 & 4° @ « 4&6 m8 vi

Seventh Amendment (in rele-

vant pert) .-« «eevcsee i-vii

Fourteenth Amendment (in re-

devant part) .<«+« eee e I-vi

PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI —

TO THE U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

TENTH CIRCUIT

Petitioners Rainsford J. Winslow and Wini-

fred W. Winslow respectively pray that a Writ

of Certiorari be issued to review the ORDER

of the U.S. District Court, Division of Colo-

rado dated 27 Jun 83. Also, the ORDER of the

United States Court cf Appeals, Tenth Cir-

cuit, which dismissed the appeal 30 Nov 83.

THE PETITION FOR REHEARING was denied.

OPINIONS/ORDERS BELOW

The Order Of Remand by the U.S. District

Court of Colorado was Granted 27 Jun 83.

(Appendix A) The Motion To Reconsider Order

Of Remand was denied 29 Jul 83. (Appendix B)

The U.S. Court of Appeals Dismissed the

Winslow appeal 30 Nov 83. (Appendix C) The

Petition For Rehearing by the U.S. Court of

Appeals was Denied 5 Jan 84. (Appendix D)

JURISDICTION

This United States Court's jurisdictionis

invoked under 28 USC 1254 and possibly 28

._-.

- 2-

USC 2403(b), because there are issues as to

the constitutionality of two Colorado Rules

of Civil Procedure.

CONSTITUTIONAL AND STATUTORY

PROVISIONS INVOLVED

1. United States Constitution:

Fifth Amendment (in relevant

part):

"No person shall be...

deprived of life, liberty,

Or property, without due

process of law; nor shall

private property be taken

for public use, without just

compensation."

Seventh Amendment (in relevant

part):

"In Suits at common law...

the right of trial by jury

Shall be preserved...

Fourteenth Amendment (in rele-

vant part):

"No State shall make or enforce

any law which shall abridge the

privileges or immunities of cit-

izens of the United States; nor

Shall any State deprive any per-

son of life, liberty, or pro-

perty, without due process of law;

nor deny any person within its

jurisdiction the equal protection

of the laws."

-3-

2. Federal Statutes:

Titles 28 USC 1343, 28 USC

1441, 28 USC 1443, 28 USC 1446,

and 28 USC 1447.

3. Colorado Rules Of Civil Procedure:

CRCP 23, CRCP 39, and CRCP 97.

INTRODUCTION

Petitioners Rainsford and Winifred Winslow

are ages 63 and 61 respectively. Both are

native Americans and believe in the United

States. Between 21 Jun 79 and today, the

Winslows have been disillusioned with the

justice system in their country. This is be-

cause of what they feel is bizarre treatment

in the Colorado Court system and the United

States Court system.

As a boy, Winslow became an Eagle Scout,

and during World War II, he served in the

U.S. Infantry and was awarded the Purple

Heart for wounds in action, the Combat Infan-

trymans' Badge, and the Bronze Star for Valor.

He is a past president of the Fort Morgan

- 4-

Rotary Club and served in many civic commit-

ties over the past 35 years.

Mrs. Winslow is a graduate of the Univer-

sity of Denver, taught in the Denver Public

Schools for three years while her husband

was serving in the Armed Forces. She is an

Elder inthe Presbyterian Church. With her

husband, she raised three adopted chiidren

and all are doing well today. There are six

grandchildren. She has also served on many

civic committees in Fort Morgan over the

past 35 years.

This “last resort" Petition to this U.S.

Supreme Court tells a sad story, not only

about the Winslows' plight, but also the

plight of more than 100 others, most of who

wanted no part of this Morgan Heights real

estate legal quagmire.

The Winslows and at least 71 others pray

that this U.S. Supreme Court will review this

case and give judicial relief to the Winslows

- 5 -

and the Absent Class Members. The relief

sought is a NEW, FAIR JURY TRIAL BEFORE AN

IMPARTIAL JUDGE IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT

COURT.

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

1. Rainsford J. Winslow and Winifred W.

Winslow, husband and wife, started Morgan

Heights, a 280 acre subdivision located four

miles northwest of Fort Morgan, Colorado 16

Jan 54, 30 years ago. Eighty acres are sub-

divided, 40 acres nearly subdivided, and 160

acres are undeveloped.

2. Between 1954 and 1971, only seven homes

were built in Morgan Heights, including the

Winslow home, which was the first one. They

live there today; did not "sell and run."

Between 1971 and 1979, 44 additional homes

were built. On 21 Jun 79, 33 Morgan Heights

residents filed a Class Action lawsuit, which

Claimed the Winslows did not fullfil certain

promises pertaining to roads, sewer system

- 6 -

and water system. The Morgan County Commis-

sioners, led by Morgan County Attorney E. Ord

Wells, were also adversaries of the Winslows

as to the roads. The Winslows deny the alle-

gations, but the merits of this case are not

at issue here.

3. Four of the 33 Named-Plaintiffs (Ste-

ger/O'Neil/Williams/Fillingham) have develop-

ment property either adjoining or near Morgan

Heights. Adversary County Attorney Wells has

a pecuniary interest in development property

adjoining Morgan Heights.

4. The Winslow's Attorney, Richard K. Clark,

the of

prior to /filing/the lawsuit, said he believed

the leaders of the 33 Named-Plaintiffs were

making an INVESTMENT IN THE COURT SYSTEM, a

concept prevalent in Denver. Unscrupulous

land developers/business moguls file merit-

less lawsuits against "little guys” to gain

control of the “little guy's" land and/or

-7-.

business. Those who make this INVESTMENT IN

THE COURT figure to spend thousands in the

Court system to break him, and get control

of the property/business desired. Thus, the

attorney fees/legal costs become an investment

in gaining control of the property/business.

5. Attorney Clark theorized that these

Lawsuit Leaders were interested in the Winslows'

water rights, and if successful, would break

the Winslows to get the Morgan Heights pro-

perty for ten cents on the dollar. This would

permit the use of the water rights on the ad-

joining lands, because the adjoining lands do

not have the water rights comparable to the

Winslows' water rights.

6. Neither Attorney Clark nor the Trial

Court Judge James R. Leh gave the Winslows

an explanation of their jury rights in this

Morgan Heights case. CRCP 38 does not require

full disclosure of these rights tc a civil

litigant, which Winslows fee' is unconstitu-

es /

- 8 -

tional because there is no full jury right

disclosure to the civil litigant. The Crim-

inal Defendant is given his rights, but not

the Civil Defendant. This is not equal pro-

tection under the laws.

No Fair Trial With Impartial Judge

7. On 9 Sep 80, there was a Road Issue

Summary Judgment Hearing, which Judge Leh

denied, apparently because of his personal

experience as a County Attorney and a County

Commissioner in another county. (The Morgan

County Commissioners and the Morgan County

Attorney were adverse parties to the Winslows.)

Upon reading the partial transcript of the

comments by Judge Leh and the fact that he

had the point of view of a County Commissioner

and a County Attorney, Attorneys Donald A.

Carpenter, a former District Judge, George

Reddin, Robert Chapin, and Raymond C. Johnson

determined that a Motion to Disqualify Judge

- 9 -

Leh should be filed. Attorney Johnson filed

this Motion with appropriate Affidavits 28

Nov 80 as per CRCP 97 (Change of Judge).

This was well before Judge Leh heard any por-

tion of the Winslows' side of the case.

Judge Leh denied the Motion To Disqualify him-

self. (See Appendix E, Motion For Disquali-

fication/Supporting Affidavit)

8. Without details, several additional

prejudicial actions by Judge Leh and numerous

Courtroom comments by him showed his partial-

ity to the Winslows' adversaries. Seven more

Motions For Disqualification of Judge Leh

were filed, three times in the Trial Court

before Judge Leh himself, two times in the

Colorado Court of Appeals, and three times

in the Colorado Supreme Court--all motions

denied. Judge Leh finally disqualified him-

self on his own Motion 21 Jan 83 AFTER what

the Winslows feel were three prejudicial Jug-

- 10 -

ments. (The Morgan Heights case was tri-

furcated.) Attorney Johnson felt these Judg-

ments were the most prejudicial Judgments he

had ever seen in his 34 years of practicing

law in Colorado. The merits of these Judg-

ments dated 30 Jan 81, 1 Jul 81, and 5 Oct

82 are not at issue here.

9. Had CRCP 97, which covers the disqual-

ification of judges incivil cases, been writ-

ten in the same way as CRCrP 21(b), which

covers disqualification of judges in crimin-

al cases, Judge Leh would have lost jurisdic-

tion the moment he received the Motion and the

Affidavit asking for his disqualification.

Everything he had done after 28 Nov 80 would

have been null and void. This makes CRCP 97

unconstitutional, because this is not equal

protection under the law. There is also

racial discrimination here because Black and

Chicano Criminal Defendants get benefits the

- ll -

White Civil Defendant does not get. Propor-

tionately there are many more Black and Chi-

cano Criminal Defendants than there are White

Civil Defendants.

Judge Leh Rewards Criminal Act

10. On 13 Oct 80, Adversary Stanley I.

Rosener, an Attorney and Morgan Heights resi-

dent, who was one of the instigators of the

Morgan Heights lawsuit, hooked up to the

Winslow owned sewer system without permission

and without paying the tap fee that all the

12 other customers paid. This Second Degree

Criminal Tampering act as per C.R.S. 18-4-506,

is a misdemeanor. Winslow filed a complaint

with the Morgan County Sheriff's Department,

and it was turned over to District Attorney

Doyle T. Johns, Jr., who refused to prosecute.

On 2 Nov 80, Judge Leh permitted Attorney

Rosener to remain on the system. He required

a $1,000 escrow deposit, which was refunded

- 12 -

to Rosener by the Judgment of 5 Oct 82. He

did not reprimand Attorney Rosener as he is

required to do as per CRCP 241.5; he REWARDED

him. This shows partiality to an adversary

of the Winslows. It is not equal protection

of the laws, and confiscated Winslows' pro-

perty without compensation, violations of

U.S. Const., Art. V and XIV.

More Judicial Discrimination/Partiality

ll. On 23 Oct 81, Adversary/Land Developer

John Fillingham, who has an adjoining/compet-

ing subdivision west of Morgan Heights, went

before Judge Leh to ask to go on Winslows'

sewer system. Judge Leh let him, required a

$1,509 escrow deposit, and then refunded the

$1,500 to Fillingham by the Judgment of 5 Oct

82. A free sewer tap to Winslow adversary;

another violation of U.S. Const., Art. V and

XIV.

12. Of the now 14 Winslow sewer system cus-

a

-13-<-

tomers, 12 PAID a tap fee; two got FREE tap

fees.

Judge Gives Away Winslow Land

13. By his 5 Oct 82 Judgment, Judge Leh gave

five acres of the Winslows' land, which had

been set aside for recreational purposes for

the residents of Morgan Heights,to MORGAN

COUNTY. This particular five acres was not

an issue by anybody in this case. The Plain-

tiffs didn't demand the land, and neither did

adversary Morgan County. This was just a

"gift" by Judge Leh to the residents of Morgan

County. Would the Morgan Heights residents

want to establish a Metro Recreational District

for the benefit of all of Morgan County?

Apparently, as a former County Commissioner

and County Attorney, 7udge Leh wanted to REWARD

the Morgan County Commissioners with this free

piece of choice Morgan Heights land. U.S.

Const., Art. V and XIV

Morgan Heights Class Issue

14. There was a Class Determination Hearing

14 May 80, but no notice to Absent Class Mem-

bers. Judge Leh didn't require any notice.

15. On 11 Jun 80, Judge Leh determined there

was a Morgan Heights Class, and defined it as

those persons who owned property on or after

14 May 80. Here is the exact definition as

per the 5 Oct 82 Judgment:

1. The court's previous rulings as

to class certification reaffirmed

- « »« (and the) class continues to

be composed of all those non-defendant

land owners of Morgan Heights as of

May 14, 1980, together with their

successors and assigns, up to and in-

cluding the date of the final deter-

mination of this lawsuit.

15. This means that if a person who owned

property on 14 May 80 sold his property and

moved away, “hat person would still be in the

Class and the person buying the property would

also be in the Class--no escape. There were

- 15 -

approximately ten different efforts to decert-

ify the Class to permit certain members of the

Class to opt out, but Judge Leh would not per-

mit anyone to opt out.

16. There are about 105 Absent Class Members

and 71 have indicated they wanted to be ex-

cluded either by testimony at trial, affidavits

filed with the Court, letters filed with the

Court, or special forms requesting the oppor-

tunity to opt out.

17. What this means to Absent Class Members

is that should any one of them wish to sell

their home, they will have to give full dis-

closure to the prospective purchaser that said

prospective purchaser will be in the Class and

subject to possible legal fees that have been

charged by Class Attorney Robert J. Dyer III.

He has never told anybody as to what the legal

fees are, but they probably are about $350,000.

18. This means Judge Leh, by his Class Deter-

mination Order, has put a legal cloud on all

- 16 -

property in Morgan Heights. Several who have

sold took less for their property because of

this legal cloud. Some have had to post money

in escrow to pay possible legal fees in the

future to protect purchasers.

19. These Morgan Heights Absent Class Members

protested saying they wanted no part of this

lawsuit, did not want to be represented by

Class Attorney Dyer and did not want to pay

any of his legal fees, and wanted to be exclud-

ed from the Class. They proclaimed this to

the Court,as previously indicated. This list

that follows includes the three Winslow

children, three Winslow attorneys, two Winslow

seven

business partners, and at least/close friends,

all of whom were forced into the lawsuit

(against the Winslows) against their wills.

One of the above mentioned attorneys repre-

sented the Winslows in this lawsuit, but yet

he was included in theClass against them.

Here are those who have begged the Trial Court,

« i? «

the Colorado Court of Appeals, the Colorado

Supreme Court and the U.S. District Court via

the Winslow REMOVAL PETITION to exclude them

from the Class:

order.)

Forrest Atwood

Larry Benton

Roger Childers

Robert Cooper,

L.L. Canfield

Lawrence Floyd

Jay Garthwaite

Stanley Grimes

Deborah Winslow Hand

Arthur Holmes

J.V. Ostermiller

James Bachar

Alan Campbell

Robert Cooper, Sr.

David Cornwell

LaVar Floyd

Dwaine Gibson

Joe Heagney

Richard B. Paynter

Kay Reed

Alex Schutzenhofer

John Stark

Marshall Ulrich

Douglas S. Winslow

Paul Schlue

David Scott

Larry Shugart

Robert Rockwell

Ralph Ward

Ted Curtis

Jr.

(Listed in no particular

Margaret Atwood

Teresa Benton

Anita Childers

Paula Cooper

Hazel Canfield

Kathleen Floyd

Carolyn Garthwaite

Teresa Grimes

Harriet Paynter

Roberta Holmes

Margaret Ostermiller

Margaret Finlayson

Nancy Campbell

Nancy Cooper

Anita Cornwell

Betty Floyd

Robert Haffke

Raymond C. Johnson

Irmalee Pennington

Miriam Settle

Betty Schutzenhofer

Doris Stark

Dannette Ulrich

Mildred Yates

Fern Schlue

Jan Scott

Anna Shughart

Donna Rockwell

Norma Ward

Nancy Curtis

= 18 -

Fred Nuss Lucille Nuss

William Vincze Keith Florian

Emmitt Taylor Hazel Taylor

David Spencer Joyce Gibson

Robert Kelley Karen Kelley

Eleanor Spencer

Conflict Within The Class

20. In Apr 80, now Absent Class Members

Richard B. Paynter and Lawrence Floyd to-

gether with Denver Architect Edwin Warner,

came to the Winslows to option two large build-

ing cites for a 15 unit condominium project.

About the same time, Building Contractor

David Cornwell had completed three Morgan

Heights homes including his own and was about

done with a fourth one for Joseph Heagney,

who is also in the building business. Both

Cornwell and Heagney were interested in build-

ing further homes in Morgan Heights.

21. Real Estate Broker Ted Curtis, with

Contractor Lawrence Floyd had built seven

homes and had two more “in the wings." They

had optioned two lots from the Winslow children

- 19 -

for two more spec homes.

22. On 1 May 79, Paynter and Floyd pur-

chased eight additional sites for further

residential development.

23. Home Developers Heagney, Cornwell,

Paynter, Floyd, and Curtis all resided in

Morgan Heights and were responsible for the

surge of home building in late 1977, all of

1978 and the first part of 1979.

ae ee

24. Lawsuit Leader/Condo Developer Keith

D. Williams was hard at work on his condo/patio

home development called Country Club Estates,

which adjoins Morgan Heights to the southeast.

The estimated completion cost: $3,000,000.

John Fillingham was moving ahead with his

new development Rolling Hills, another sub-

division adjoining Morgan Heights on the west.

Banker/Land Developer David E. Steger had more

than half of his real estate development sold

- 20 -

out in Fort Morgan. Lee O'Neil was beginning

to develop his subdivision south of Brush,a few

miles east of Fort Morgan. (Williams,Fillingham,

Steger, and O'Neil are all Named-Plaintiffs in

this lawsuit against the Winslows.)

25. Morgan County Attorney E. Ord Wells, a

severe Winslow adversary, was trying hard to

sell his Three Lakes, Inc. property, which

adjoins Morgan Heights to the east.

26. Adversaries Williams, Steger, Fillingham

and O'Neil all resided in Morgan Heights, but

have property to develop OUTSIDE and either ad-

joining or close by.

27. This is what was going on just prior to

the filing ot the Morgan Heights lawsuit 21

Jun 79. After that date, every bit of growth

in Morgan Heights came to a "screaching halt!"

No more Paynter/Floyd/Warner condos; Heagney

was stopped cold as were Floyd and Curtis, who

could not pick up the option on Winslow's

daughter's lot.

- 21-

28. What did happen was that everything

was GO with Williams and his condo program,

Fillingham and his project west, Steger and

O'Neil were going great guns, and the Three

Lakes, Inc property, managed by County Attorney

Wells SOLD to a developer for $310,000 on 18

Aug 81. (The Wells group paid $15,000 for

this 155 acre development property in 1963.)

29. This Court has got to ask the question:

"How can Real Estate Developers Williams,

Fillingham, Steger, and O'Neil fairly PROTECT

the interests of Absent Class Members Paynter,

Floyd, Curtis, Heagney, and Cornwell with pro-

perty to develop within Morgan Heights?"

They are obliged to PROTECT the interests of

the Absent Class Members as per CRCP 23, which

is identical to FRCP 23 and the applicable

part follows:

Rule 23. Class Actions

(a) Prerequisites to class actions.

One or more members of a class may sue

- 22 -

or be sue? as representative parties

on behalf of all only if:

(4) The representative parties (Williams,

Fillingham, Steger, O'Neil) fairly and

adequately PROTECT the interests of the

class. (Capitalization and underscore

for emphasis.)

30. There is ample authority to show that

when there is conflict of interest between

Named-Plaintiffs and the Absent Class Members,

there can be no Class.

31. The Trial Court knows about this severe

conflict of interest, the Colorado Court of

Appeals knows about this conflict of interest,

the Colorado Supreme Court is aware of the

conflict, and so is the U.S. District Court

and the U.S. Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit.

Yet, not one of these Courts,up to this point,

has done anything to protect the interests of

the Absent Class Members.

32. As per CRCP 23(a)(4), which has been

quoted, it is the obligation of the Named-

Plaintiffs to PROTECT the interests of the

- 23-

Absent Class Members. This didn't happen in

the Morgan Heights case, and to the contrary,

the Named-Plaintiffs have harmed financially

all of these five Absent Class Members who

are or were Morgan Heights Real Estate De-

velopers. (See Map, Appendix F.)

33. Federal Administrative Judge Richard

B. Paynter, who was a Morgan Heights resident

and a Real Estate Developer, wrote a letter to

Class Attorney Robert J. Dyer III, 11 Nov 80,

and here are some significant excerpts:

"We definitely feel that you and one or

more of the named plaintiffs have failed

to represent us or our rights in any res-

pect. On the contrary, you have caused

us substantial and irreparable damage

and continue to do so by insisting that

this case go to trial rather than work-

ing on a bona fide effort to settle the

case.

Never, in my many years of the practice

of law, have I been treated by another

attorney in the manner that you have

treated me. Again, I reiterate, NEVER,

NEVER in my entire practice of law have

I been treated in this manner.

It was incumbent upon you to meet with

all of us (Absent Class Members) to

- 24 <-

determine the desires of the named

class in this action rather than to

continue it in an attempt to, as Mr.

Garthwaite stated, conduct a "railroad

job."

You and the named plaintiffs are well

aware of the fact that Mr. Edwin Warner,

architect, and I had in the process a

plan for the development of condomin-

iums, in the Second Addition. As a

matter of fact, one or more of the

named plaintiffs had seen the very de-

tailed and complete plans of these

condominiums, and you at that time ad-

vised Mr. Rosener that I had concluded

that we might have to proceed through

a planned unit development hearing

prior to the development of these condo-

miniums. You and one or more of the

named plaintiffs have also known

throughout these proceedings that Mr.

Floyd and I had substantial property

interests in Morgan Heights.

May I conclude by stating our total

dissatisfaction with the manner in

which you have conducted this liti-

gation and the manner in which you

have treated not only Mr. Floyd and

myself but the Wards, Mr. Garthwaite

and many others of the urnamed plain-

tiffs by totally failing to consult

us relative to what we may desire even

though you have been fully advised of

our interests.

- 25 -

We do not want you to represent us in

any manner and deny that you do.”

Yours very truly,

Richard B. Paynter

34. Attorney Raymond C. Johnson, who repe-

sented the Winslows in this Morgan Heights

case, filed a Motion to go before either the

United States Court of Appeals or the Colorado

Court of Appeals. It was titled: MOTION FOR

EXCLUSION FROM CLASS. Here are a few signi-

ficant parts of this Motion:

"Neither my deceased partner's execu-

trix nor I want to be a member of a

class opposing the Winslows, whose

cause we support.

There are numerous conflicts of in-

terest in this case between the named

Plaintiffs and members of the pur-

ported class. Mr. Dyer has never

represerted my interests or those of

the executrix of James Reed's

estate, nor can he do so.

The continuance of this lawsuit, con-

trary to my wishes and the wishes of

numerous non-party Plaintiffs in this

purported class, continues to place

a dead hand on sales in the subdivi-

sion, and is damaging my personal

and property interests."

- 26 -

35. In the August 4, 1983 issue of THE

ROCKY MOUNTIAN NEWS, here is a significant quote:

"This is as odd as a $3 bill," said

Attorney Ray Johnson, who accepted a

subdivision lot in lieu of legal fees.

"I certainly don't want to pay Dyer's

fees."

Bias /Prejudice Of Court Reporter

35. On 2 Dec 81, Attorney Raymond C.

Johnson, representing the Winslows, brought

up the conflict of interest between Named-

Plaintiffs O'Neil/Steger/ Williams/Filling-

ham and the five Absent Class Members who

were developing property within Morgan

Heights (Paynter/Floyd/Cornwell/Heagney/Cur-

tis.) Judge Leh denied the Motion for Class

Decertification and then said something like

this:

"O'Neil's real estate development is

near Brush, distant from Morgan Heights.

Steger's development is in Fort Morgan

but of a different type than Morgan

Heights. That leaves Mr. Williams and

Mr. Fillingham, with adjoining land to

Morgan Heights. Now, if they had really

- 27 -

wanted to harm the Winslows, they would

not have brought the lawsuit in the first

place, they would have just let Morgan

Heights go to pot."

36. Morgan Heights was not "going to pot."

Quite the opposite, it was progressing in an

orderly fashion, and was in compliance with

all government regulations. In fact,the year

before the lawsuit was filed 21 Jun 79, was

the biggest property sales year in the history

of Morgan Heights' 24 years of development.

37. A day or so later, Winslow made an

Affidavit of approximately what Judge Leh had

said. In Jan 82, BEFORE the major portion of

the trial, Attorney Johnson filed another

Original Proceeding in the Colorado Supreme

Court to disqualify Judge Leh and used the

"Williams/Fillingham" statement in an Affi-

davit which the Winslows signed. In Oct 82,

the Winslows filed another Original Proceed-

ing in the Colorado Supreme Court and again

used the Leh statement regarding how Williams

- 28 -

and Fillingham helped the Winslows by filing

the lawsuit against them 21 Jun 79.

38. Winslow then requested testimony of

certain witnesses and also the Judge Leh com-

ments of the hearing 2 Dec 81. When the

transcript arrived, the Fillingham/Williams

comments by Judge Leh were omitted and Court

Reporter David A. Martin could not find the

partial testimony of five witnesses favorable

to the Winslows. Here is precisely what

Court Reporter Martin said in his letter

dated 12 Nov 82:

Dear Mr. Winslow:

Per your request for the testimony

of the various witnesses, I have

completed what I could find. I

could not find the testimony you re-

guested as being asked by Mr.

Johnson for the following persons:

Mr. and Mrs. Curtis, Mr. Alsip,

Mrs. Kelley, Mrs. Larson. Mrs.

Floyd and Mrs. Doty were just asked

if they agreed with what their hus-

bands had said.

With kindest pesonal regards, I am,

Yours very truly,

David A. Martin

- 29 -

39. Shortly after this extraordinary re-

velation, Winslow brought this to the atten-

tion of the Fort Morgan Times in several

Letters To The Editor as to the credibility

of the Court Reporter and this matter was

also presented to the Trial Court 10 Jan 83

and subsequently to the Colorado Court of

Appeals and the Colorado Supreme Court.

There was no rebuttal to any of this by Court

Reporter Martin and he could have had his

"Day In Court" 8 Feb 83 when he was subpoenaed

into Court to testify about the record. Trial

Court Judge Marvin W. Foote would not permit

testimony of Martin, and Martin did not demand

to be heard on the issue of his credibility.

Not until Apr 80 did Court Reporter Martin

rebutt the fact that he could not find the

testimony of the five witnesses requested,

and he never did address the OMITTED comments

of Judge Leh at the 2 Dec 81 hearing regard-

ing Williams and Fillingham.

- 30 =-

40. With all of these facts regarding the

credibility of Court Reporter Martin and how

these facts were put before the Colorado

Courts, would it not be the fear of anybody

ordered to purchase a transcript from such a

Court Reporter for $10,000 to $15,000, to be

concerned that this Court Reporter was biased

and prejudiced against the party questioning

his credibility? Would it not be the fear

of any person that this Court Reporter might

change testimony that could severely damage

the party paying for the transcript? This

is why the Winslows did not purchase the

transcript, and this is why they filed the

REMOVAL PETITION with the U.S. District

Court nine days after the ORDER from the

Colorado Court of Appeals, which demanded

the Winslows purchase this incomplete trans-

Ccript. (The Winslows had also been turned

down by the Colorado Supreme Court on this

ry

- 3l -

very issue at least two times. Thus, they

had exhausted the State remedies for their

Civil Rights as per U.S. Const., Art. V & XIV.)

The Winslow Removal Petition

41. When the Colorado Court of Appeals

ordered the Winslows to produce the Court Re-

porter Martin transcript on 8 Jun 83, and be-

cause the Winslows had attempted numerous

times in the Colorado Court of Appeals and in

the Colorado Supreme Court to get a new trial

because of the incomplete transcript and be-

cause of the omission in the transcript of

2 Dec 81, the only thing they could do was go

the “Removal Petition Route" in the U.S

District Court in Denver.

42. Everything made an issue in this PETI-

TION to this U.S.Supreme Court was raised in

the Winslow REMOVAL PETITION. None of the

issues went to the merits of the Morgan Heights

case. All are U.S. Constitutional issues.

- 32 +

43. It seems to the Winslows that the Re-

moval Petition, which was filed, followed the

exact intent of all Federal Removal Statutes.

These statutes were designed to give relief

to citizens who have been dealt injustice in

a State Court.

44. One of the leaders in approving 28

USC 1443, which goes to Civil Rights, had

this to say on the Senate floor prior to the

passage of Section 901 of the Civil Rights

Act of 1964:

SENATOR DODD

"It would be extremely difficult to spe-

cify with precision the kinds of cases

which ought to be removable under 28

USC 1443. This is true because of the

many and variedc circumstances which can

and do arise incivil rights matters.

Accordingly it seems advisable to allow

the Courts to deal case by case with

Situations as they arise, and to fashion

the remedy so as' to harmonize it with

other statutory remedies made available

for denials of equal civil rights."

(110 Cong. Rec. 6956) (Emphasis added.)

45. Winslows feel that the Removal Procedure

.

,

;

: i

fits the Winslow case “like the paper on the

oe 33 @

wall." Look at all of the U.S. Constitutional

Rights that have been violated by adverse

parties to the Winslows and look at the in-

justice done to more than 105 Morgan Heights

Absent Class Members. The U.S. District Court

only looked at the voluminous documents ten

days and then remanded it back to the Colorado

Court of Appeals. The Motion For Reconsider-

ation was filed a few days later then denied

29 Jul 83. The Notice of Appeal was filed

1 Aug 83, and was DISMISSED without review 30

Nov 83. A Petition For Rehearing was made a

short time later and it was denied 5 Jan 84.

ARGUMENTS FOR REMOVAL

46. It is believed the U.S. District Court

erred in all counts as to why they remanded

this case back to the Colorado Court of Appeals.

Here is a point by point analysis rebutting

the U.S. District Court Order:

(1) Alleged Defect: All Defendants did

not consent to removal.

- 34 =

Answer: Adversary Morgan County is a De-

fendant/Appellee, and the two Winslow

Corporations were not addressed in any

of the Judgments. The Morgan Heights

Sewer/Sanitation Company is defunct.

When Removal Petition is filed under 28

USC 1443 as to civil rights, all Defen-

dants need not join in. Grenchik v.

Mandell, 373 F.Supp 1298; Bridgeport Ed.

Assn. v. Zinner, 415 F.Supp 715.

(2) Alleged Defect: Petition failed to

meet 30 day requirement, case is four

years old, see 28 USC 1446(b).

Answer: Apparently U.S. District Court

did not read the second paragraph under

28 USC 1446(b). For the convenience of

this U.S. Supreme Court, the second

paragraph is cited:

Procedure For Removal

If the case stated by the initial

pleading is not removable, a petition

for removal may be filed within 30

days after receipt by the Defendant,

through service or otherwise, a copy

of an amended pleading, motion, or

order or other paper from which it

may first be ascertained that the case

isone which has become removable.

The Morgan Heights case was removed from

the Colorado Court of appeals AFTER the

Order of 8 Jun 83, which violated the

Winslows' Constitutional Rights, Art. XIV.

The Morgan Heights case was not ready for

Removal until 8 June 83, therefore it

complies with 28 USC 1446(b).

- 35 -

(3) Alleged Defect: Claims made by

Petitioner Winslow were never asserted

in Complaints/Pleadings in State Court

as required by 28 USC 1441.

Answer: There were numerous U.S. Con-

stitutional violations alleged in the

State Courts, the main one being "Fair

Trial/Impartial Judge," which goes to

U.S. Const., Art. XIV. The incomplete

transcript issue goes to "fair appeal."

There were also questions about the con-

stitutionality of two Colorado Rules of

Civil Procedure CRCP 38 and CRCP 97,

which have been cited earlier in this

Petition.

When U.S. Constitutional issues are

raised, and they were, not only in the

Trial Court, the Colorado Court of

Appeals, but in the Colorado Supreme

Court as well. The U.S. District Court

can take jurisdiction as per 28 USC

1441(b) which goes to "Claim or Rights

arising under the Constitution...

(4) Alleged Defect: On the facts of

this case, 28 USC 1443 is not appli-

cable. See Peltier v. Peltier, 548

F.2d 1083.

Answer: Title 28 USC 1443 goes to

Civil Rights, and in the Morgan Heights

case, pleadings were filed relative to

jury demands, fair trial/impartial

judge, fair appeal, racial discrimina-

tion, all of these issues are covered

under Title 28 USC 1443.

The case of Peltier v. Peltier was a

divorce case alleging that women got

- 36 -

a better break then men and has no

relevance or comparability to the

Morgan Heights case.

47. The Winslows sought a Declaratory Jug-

ment Hearing with a jury in the U.S. District

Court, but were denied. The Winslows also

sought a hearing with regard to the Removal

Petition, and were denied. They received no

"Day In Court."

Old Case Backs Up Removal

48. The U.S. Court system is a check on

State Court systems. A 1799 case is highly

Significant. In the Winslow Morgan Heights

case, this citation from Fowler v. Lindsay,

3 U.S. 411 at 413 shows this:

A certiorari .. . can only issue as

original process, to remove a cause,

and change the venue when the superior

court is satisfied that a fair and im-

partial trial will not stherwise be

obtained; and it is sometimes used, as

auxilary process, when for instance,

diminution of record is alleged, or

writ of error; but in such cases, the

superior court must have jurisdiction

of the controversy.

49. In the Winslow case, they did not get

- 37 -

a fair trial before an impartial judge. The

other issue is the fact that they cannot ob-

tain a complete record and significant

judicial comments were omitted.

50. Even BLACK'S LAW DICTIONARY has this

to say on diminution and is found on Page 412

of the Fifth Edition:

Diminution. Incompleteness .. . a word

signifying that the record sent up from

an inferior to a superior court for review

is incomplete, or not fully certified.

51. Even back in 1799, 185 years ago, this

"Fair Trial/Impartial Judge" issue and the

"Incomplete Transcript” issue was the basis

for REMOVAL. When this was reviewed by the

U.S. District Court, it did have jurisdiction

but failed to continue jurisdiction by the

Order Of Remand dated 27 Jun 83. It should

have kept jurisdiction as per this signifi-

cant U.S. Supreme Court decision in Fowler

v. Lindsay supra.

ets

= 38 ~

Disqualification Of Judge

52. In Colorado there is racial discrimin-

ation against the White Civil Defendant, be-

cause the Biack and Chicano Criminal Defen-

dant gets a better break when it comes to

disqualifying a judge. Under CRCrP 21l(b),

the Criminal Defendant files a Motion through

his attorney for the disqualification of judge

with two Affidavits signed by non-relatives,

and the judge has no discretion, he must step

aside and loses jurisdiction at that point.

53. On the other hand, by CRCP 97, a White

Civil Defendant files a Motion To Disqualify

a judge with Affidavit, the judge rules upon

his own bias and prejudice. It is argued

that this inhibits an attorney or Civil De-

fendant from filing a Motion To pisqualify

in the first place, because such a Motion

could "tick a judge off." The Winslows be-

lieve this is exactly what happened to them,

- 39 -

that Judge Leh was "ticked off" because of

the initial Motion To Disqualify and the

subsequent ones.

54. A 9 Jan 84 Original Proceeding in the

Colorado Supreme Court, the discretion seems

to be eliminated, Carl Johnson v. District

Court, 674 P.2d 952, which takes the exact

same position as CRCrP 21(b). Winslows did't

have the benefit of this decision when they

filed three separate Petitions before the

Colorado Supreme Court.

55. In the Winslow case, the Motion for

the disqualification of Judge Leh filed

with Affidavit 28 Nov 80, was denied by him.

If the same thinking is spelled out in John-

son v. District Court, supra, was in effect,

Judge Leh would have lost jurisdiction 28

Nov 80, but he held on until, by his own

Motion, he disqualified himself 21 Jan 83,

more than two years after three devastating

Judgments.

a on oe

- 40 -

56. In Johnson, they cite a United States

Supreme Court landmark case of Berger v.

United States, 255 U.S. 22 and also People

v. District Court, 560 P.2d 828; Taylor v.

Hays, 418 U.S. 488.

57. In Berger, a 1921 case, the same con-

cept applies. A Motion For Disqualification

of Judge is filed with Affidavit(s) and the

judge loses jurisdiction at that point--there

is no discretion. Why should there be? Why

should the judge want to stay on?

58. The Winslows should be given a new

fair jury trial before an impartial judge in

the U.S. District Court for Colorado.

Legal Arguments On Transcript Issue

59. There are literally hundreds of cases

that state that when an Appellant cannot get

a complete transcript, he is granted a new

trial. Such a case is Calhoun v. U.S., 384

F.2d 180, cert den 414 U.S. 1024. In this

- 41 -

case, Calhoun was from Louisana and apparently

the trial was being conducted in Mississippi.

The closing arguments were either not trans-

cribed by a Court Reporter or the Court Re-

porter lost his notes, in any event, here is

what the U.S. Attorney said from reconstructed

notes:

"Let's not give all the money to the

people from Louisana and the lawyers

from Louisana, let's save some money

for the people in Mississippi."

60. On the basis of this statement alone

Calhoun was given a new trial. The fact that

the transcript of the closing arguments were

lost or misplaced was immaterial in this

instance because of the prejudicial comment

by the U.S. Attorney.

61. The case went on to say that had this

statement not been made, Calhoun would have

still been given a new trial because the

closing arguments were not recorded or they

were lost. This is because of the Court

- 42 -

Reporter Act, 28 USC 753.

62. In C.J.S. under the heading APPEAL &

ERROR, §1946 it says regarding Imperfect

Record:

A new trial or other proceeding

may be directed, where the record

is so defective or deficient as to

prevent the appellate court from

rendering final judgment.

63. Cases that go with this theory include

Anders-Hightower, Inc. v. Huie & Son, 127

So. 21; Lyon v. Crabtree, 64 S.W. 2d 24; Mills

v. Latham, 219 S.W. 2d 609; and numerous

other citations omitted.

64. In the Winslow case, there is a dif-

ference. Not only could the Court Reporter

not find the testimony of five witnesses

favorable to the Winslows, but he omitted pre-

judicial comments by the Trial Court Judge.

The other factor is the bias and prejudice

of the Court Reporter because all of this

aired in four levels of the Court system,

- 43 -

plus the press. This Court Reporter's cred-

ibility was questioned and would he not have

to be biased and prejudiced against the Winslows?

This is why the Winslows did not spend some-

where between $10,000 and $15,000 to get a

transcript which could have been "doctored."

This would have to have been a concern of any-

body in a similar position to what the Winslows

are in.

REASONS FOR GRANTING REVIEW

65. Here is a point by point summary of the

reasons for granting review of this PETITION:

A. More than 100 Absent Class Members

put into a Class Action lawsuit,

certified without due process.

B. The Morgan County Trial Court put

a legal cloud on the property of

every Class Member.

C. The Winslows did not receive a fair

trial before an impartial judge.

They tried to disqualify this judge

EIGHT times--denied each time.

D. Four jury demands denied.

E. Judge rewards criminal act.

=i

- 44 -

F. Trial Court Judge gives adversary

free sewer tap.

G. Judge gave away five acres of

Winslows' land earmarked for the

residents of Morgan Heights to all

of MORGAN COUNTY, when it wasn't

even an issue by anyone.

H. Court Reporter can't find testimony

of five witnesses favorable to the

Winslows.

I. Court Reporter omits prejudicial

remarks by Trial Court Judge.

J. Because Winslows questioned the cred-

ibility of Court Reporter Martin,

it is believed he is biased and pre-

jJudiced against them.

K. The REMOVAL PETITION should not have

been remanded to the Colorado Court

of Appeals.

L. The U.S. Court of Appeals should

have reviewed the Winslow appeal

regarding ORDER OF REMAND as per

28 USC 1447(d).

M. It is believed that CRCP 38, concern-

ing civil juries, and CRCP 97 as to

disqualification of judges in civil

cases are both unconstitutional be-

cause the Criminal Defendant gets a

better break on the counterpart crim-

inal rules.

66. It is believed that any of the issues

listed in the above summary would be reason

lel

- 45 -

enough to grant a review of this PETITION.

CONCLUSION

67. It is the prayer of the Winslows that

this Honorable Supreme Court of The United

States will grant Certiorari and consider

granting the Winslows a new trial with a jury

with an impartial judge in the United States

District Court. Berger. v U.S., Supra.

68. Not only are the lives of the Winslows

at stake in this critical case, but the lives

and property values of more than 105 Absent

Class Members, most of whom did not want to

become involved in the first place.

Respectfully submitted,

° .

o

Rainsford’ J. Winsfow

Opposing Counsel

E. Ord Wells, Esq. Robert J. Dyer III

229 East Kiowa Ave. 825 Logan

Ft. Morgan, Co 80701 Denver, Co 80203

Representing: Representing:

Morgan County, CO Plaintiffs

ao

oO ee were

—-

- 46 -

VERIFICATION

STATE OF COLORADO )

) ss.

COUNTY OF MORGAN )

RAINSFORD J. WINSLOW and WINIFRED W.

WINSLOW, of lawful age, being first duly

sworn upon their oaths, depose and state

as follows:

That they have read the foregoing

PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE

UNITED STATES CUURT OF APPEALS TENTH,

CIRCUIT; know the contents thereof, and

that the statements therein contained are

true and correct to the best of their know-

lege, information, and belief.

Ral J. Winslow

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO BEFORE ME THIS

23rd day of March, 1984.

WITNESS my hand and official seal.

My commission expires August 4, 1987.

a

NOTARY PUBLIC {ing®f “

STATE OF COLORADO Jean K. Nielsen

1S JEAN K. NIELSEN 506 Devel Street

let Ye ee Fort Morgan, Co 80701

APPENDIX A.

United States District Court

District Of Colorado

Keith D. Williams, et al., Plaintiffs-Ap-

pellees-Respondents, v. Rainsford J. Winslow,

et al., Defendants~-Appellants-Petitioners,

Morgan County, Colorado, et al., Defendants-

Appellees-Respondents. Tr. Ct. 79 CV 97, No.

83 CA 0211, No. 83-Z-1085.

Filed: June 27, 1983.

Order Of Remand

THIS MATTER is before the Court on res-

pondent Keith D. Williams' Motion for Remand.

For the reasons stated below, the Motion will

be granted.

From the Court's careful examination of

the file and pleadings concerning the Peti-

tion for Removal, it is manifest that the

Petition contains numerous defects which are

fatal to this Court's retaining jurisdiction.

These defects include, inter alia, the follow-

ing:

(1) The Petition for Removai itself re-

veals that not all defendants in this action

have consented to the removal, as required

- 2-A -

under federal law. See Chicago, R.I.&P. Ry.

Co. v. Martin, 178 U.S. 245 (1900).

(2) The Petition fails to meet the 30-day

statutory requirement for filing with the

federal court, as this case is over four

years old and is currently on appeal to the

Colorado Court of Appeals. See 28 U.S.C. |

§ 1446(b).

(3) The claims raised by petitioners which

allegedly confer jurisdiction on this Court

have never been asserted in any of plaintiff's

complaints or other pleadings in the state

courts, and thus fail to meet the require-

ments of 28 U.S.C. § 1441.

(4) On the facts of this case, 28 U.S.C.

§ 1443 is not applicable. See Peltier v.

Peltier, 548 F.2d 1083, 1084 (lst Cir. 1977).

Based on the foregoing, the Court concludes

"that the case was removed improvidently

and without jurisdiction," and therefore must :

be remanded. 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c). Addition-

hie.

- 3-A -

ally, the Court concludes that nothing further

would be served by ordering a hearing on the

Motion to Remand. Accordingly, it it

ORDERED that the Motion to Remand is granted

and the case is remanded to the Colorado Court

of Appeals . It is

FURTHER ORDERED that the Motion for Leave

to File Memorandum and Participate in Argu-

ment as Amicus Curiae is denied. It is

FURTHER ORDERED that Respondent Keith D.

Williams’ request for costs pursuant to 28

USC § 1446 is denied. It is

FURTHER ORDERED that the Motion for Declar-

atory Judgment With Jury Demand and Motion

for Injunctive Relief Regarding Citation filed

by defendants Rainsford J. Winslow and Winifred

W. Winslow are moot.

DATED at Denver, Colorado, this 27st day

of June, 1983.

BY THE COURT:

ZITA L. WEINSHIENK, Judge

United States District Court

@- 4-A -

APPENDIX B.

United States District Court

District Of Colorado

Keith D. Williams, et al., Plaintiffs-Ap-

pellees-Respondents, v. Rainsford J. Winslow,

et al., Defendants-Appellants-Petitioners,

Morgan County, Colorado, et al., Defendants-

Appellees-Respondents. Tr. Ct. 79 CV 97,

No. 83 CA 0211, No. 83-22-1085.

Dated: July 29, 1983.

Minute Order

ORDER ENTERED BY JUDGE 7ITA L. WEINSHIENK

Joan E. Boline, Admin. Secretary Dated: July

29, 1983

It is ORDERED that the Motion to Reconsider

Order of Remand filed by Petitioners Winslow

denied.

APPENDIX C.

United States Court Of Appeals

Tenth Circuit

Keith D. Williams, et al., Respondents-

Appellees, v. Rainsford J. Winslow, et al.,

Petitioners-Appellants, Morgan County, Colo-

rado, et al., Respondents-Appellees. Tr.

Ct. 79 CV 97, No. 83 CA 0211, No. 83-Z-1085,

No. 83-2016.

- 5-A -

Filed: November 30, 1983.

Before Honorable Robert H. McWilliams,

Honorable James E. Barrett and Honorable

William E. Doyle, Circuit Judges, United

States Court of Appeals.

Opinion

This matter is before the court on appel-

lants' motion to stay certain proceedings

now pending before the Colorado Court of

Appeals. The matter is also before us on

appellees’ motions to dismiss for lack of

jurisdiction and appellants‘ response

thereto. |

Generally, appeals, such as this, from

orders remanding removed actions to the

state court are not reviewable by appeal or

otherwise. See 28 U.S.C. § 1447(d); Therm-

tron Products, Inc. v. Hermansdorfer, 423

U.S. 336 (1976). Appellants’ argument that

removal to the federal district court was

properly made under cither subsection of

28 U.S.C. § 1443 is frivolous and without

- 6-A -

legal merit.

We conclude that this court lacks juris-

diction to review the order of remand, and

accordingly, the appeal must be dismissed.

Gravitt v. Southwestern Bell Telephone Co.,

430 U.S. 723 (1977).

In view of our disposition of the appeal,

we conclude that the motior for stay is moot.

APPEAL DISMISSED:

HOWARD K. PHILLIPS

Clerk

APPENDIX D.

United States Court Of Appeals

Tenth Circuit

Keith D. Williams, et al., Respondents-

Appellees, Rainsford J. Winslow, et al.,

Petitioners-Appellants, Morgan County,

Colorado, et al., Respondents~-Appellees,

Tr. Ct. 79 CV 97, No. 83 CA 0211, No. 83-

Z-1085, No. 83-2016.

Dated: January 5, 1984.

Before Honorable Robert H. McWilliams,

Honorable James E. Barrett and Honorable

William E. Doyle, Circuit Judge, United

States Court of Appeals.

- 7A -

Order

This matter comes on for consideration of

appellants' petition for rehearing.

Upon consideration thereof, the petition

is denied.

HOWARD K. PHILLIPS, Clerk

APPENDIX E.

Morgan County District Court

State Of Colorado

Keith D. Williams, et al., Plaintiffs, v.

Rainsford J. Winslow, et al., Defendants,

es. Ce. FS C¥-Si«

Filed: November 28 1980.

Motion Of Rainsford J. Winslow and

Winifred W. Winslow To Disqualify

The Honorable James R. Leh

COME NOW the Defendants Rainsford J. Winslow

and Winifred W. Winslow by their attorneys

JOHNSON & REED and Raymond C. Johnson, and

pursuant to Rule 97, C.R.C.P., move that the

Honorable James R. Leh disqualify himself as

the trial judge in the within action for the

reason set forth in the Memorandum relating

» QuA o

to disqualification filed herewith and sup-

porting Affidavit.

JOHNSON & REED

Raymond C. Johnson, #3178

‘7 2c. 2

Filed: November 28, 1980.

Memorandum In Support Of Motion

For Disqualification

The Defendants Winslow have this date filed

their Motion for Disqualification of the Hon-

orable James R. Leh to sit as trial judge

upon the within action.

They have done so regretfully, and respect-

fully, and only after a great deal of dis-

cussion with advisors and counsel, and sub-

stantial and serious consideration.

The first reason for requesting that the

Honorable James R. Leh disqualify himself is

that whether he recognizes it or not, it

appears from his remarks made at time of rul-

ing on Motion for Summary Judgment that he

- 9-A -

may be biased or prejudiced by reason of his

personal experiences as a County Attorney and

County Commissioner. In said ruling, the Court

adverted to his personal experiences as a

County Attorney and County Commissioner, which

were not in evidence in the case or proper

for consideration therein.

Even if the Court believes that his exper-

iences in representing a county and in being

a public official of a county will not in-

fluence him in this action, it is respect-

fully submitted that he cannot help having a

subconscious bias as a result of the views

and opinions he has formed in acting as County

Attorney and as a County Commissioner in the

past.

Next, the Honorable James R. Leh has a re-

putation in the Community as a "consumer

advocate."

Knowledge of this reputation in the com-

munity has reached the Defendants Winslow

- 10-A -

from various sources.

It is not believed that the Court would in

any way have a conscious bias or prejudice

in favor of the Plaintiffas as "consumers"

i.e. home purchasers in a subdivision, but

again, it is submitted that having had a bias

in favor of persons in the position of "con-

sumers" prior to his appointment as a judge

the Court cannot help having a subconscious

bias or prejudice in favor of the Plaintiffs

in this action.

Accordingly, it is respectfully requested

that the Court disqualify himself pursuant

to the provisions of Rule 97, C.R.C.P.

JOHNSON & REED

Raymond C. Johnson, #3178

i oe

Dated: November 24, 1980.

Affidavit Of Defendants Winslow in

Support Of Motion To Disquality

The Defendants Rainsford J. Winslow and

> ate... » Jt ese, tae . Pa

4. Se

- ll-A -

Winifred W. Winslow, being sworn upon their

oaths, and of lawful age, depose and state

as follows:

l. That the transcript, a copy of which

is attached to Defendants' Memorandum in

Support of Motion to Disqualify, is a true

and accurate transcript of the remarks of

this Honorable Court made at time of ruling

on summary judgment, reflecting the Court's

consideration of his own experiences as

County Attorney and as County Commissioner,

not in evidence before him at the time.

2. That they have heard from sources in

the community that the reputation in the

community of the Honorable James R. Leh prior

to his appointment as a judge, was a reputa-

tion as a "consumer advocate", af

dedicated to the interests of persons as

"consumers", who would be in position com-

parable to the purchasers of homes and lots

- 12-A -

within the Winslow subdivision and Morgan

Heights subdivision, Morgan County, Colorado,

and thus in the position of Plaintiffs herein.

FURTHER AFFIANTS SAY NOT.

Rainsford J. Winslow

Winifred W. Winslow

REPORTER'S PARTIAL TRANSCRIPT

(Relevant Part, Judge James R. Leh's Ruling)

| Summary Judgment Hearing, 9 Sep 80

FACTUAL NOTE:

It was undisputed that the Morgan County

Commissioners had been getting Colorado

Highway Users Tax Funds for the Morgan

Heights roads starting in 1973, but stopped

using these funds on the Morgan Heights roads

in 1976, even though they were still getting

these funds. Here is the relevant part of

the transcript of Judge Leh's comments on

Page 5,Lines 11 to 27;

THE COURT: Insofar as the use of the

County tax--sorry--state highway users tax

funds are concerned, I agree that may have

some bearing on the outcome of either issue

of implied or legal acceptance. How much

I'm not sure. The Court simply states its

- 12-Al -

previous experience in this field, which I

am sure is familiar to the parties involved,

counsel involved. I was once a county attorney

and also once a county commissioner and I am

aware that perhaps, if anything, it debili-

tates against the argument that twenty year

statute that is being argued for by counsel,

since this wasn't even done, as I understand

it, until '73. And at that point, just pro-

cedurally, what generally happens is that

the state presents what you have sort of re-

vealed here on a computer printout. And to

put it rather bluntly, the County Commissioners

are so tickled to death to get some money from

the state they don't often look too carefully

at what roads are included, but they look

more carefully at what has beer. excluded, and

do it from the standpoint of additional revenue

to the county road fund.

* * *

’

sa

a ST. ee,

- 12-A2 -

Judge Leh denied the Motion For Summary

Judgment on the road issue.

* * *

Transcript Certified by Court Reporter

David A. Martin 28 Sep 80.

EPILOGUE

The revolting concept on "An Investment In

The Court" has been presented. The Peti-

tion/Application to the Morgan County District

Court, from Class Attorney Robert J. Dyer III,

asks for $329,000, including $25,505 for At-

torney/Instigator/Morgan Heights Resident

Stanley I. Rosener for Class legal fees/costs.

If Judicial Relief is not granted to the Ab-

sent Class Members, who wanted no part of the

Dyer/Rosener legal services, and had no com- J

Plaint about Morgan Heights, this is what the

“Dyer Fee Formula” means to these nine Absent

Class Members:

- 12-A3 -

Name Legal/Fee/Cost

Douglas Scott Winslow

(Winslows' son) (One Lot) $ 5,095

Deborah Winslow Hand (Win-

Slows' Daughter) (One Lot) 5,095

Margaret Winslow Atwood

(Winslows' Daughter)

(One Lot) 5,095

Judge Richard B. Paynter, Morgan

Heights Land Developer

{Three Lots) 15,285

Lawrence Flcyd, Morgan Heights

Land Developer (Three Lots) 15,285

David Cornwell, Morgan Heights

Land Developer (Two Lots) 10,190

Ted Curtis, Morgan Heights

Land Developer (One Lot) 5,095

Joseph Heagney, Morgan Heights

Land Developer (One Lot) 5,095

Charles/Sandra Mayer, New 1983

Residents Morgan Heights

(Four Lots) 20,380

Money damages were awarded to Curtis

($600) and Floyd ($7,801). All other

Absent Class Members will suffer in

different degrees.

- 12-A4 -

Lawsuit Instigators/Land Developers

These Four Lawsuit Instigators, with pro-

perty to develop either ADJOINING or CLOSE

by Morgan Heights, “Invested In The Court"

the following amounts as per Attorney Dyer's

Legal Fee Petition/Application.

Fillingham paid $3,800; O'Neil, $7,450;

Steger, $7,750; and Williams, $8,100 while

the litigation was in progress. All will

be given appropriate credit. Here is how

their “Court Investment” will work for them,

unless there is Judicial Relief granted to

the Winslows and the Absent Class Members:

Developer Judgment Class Net

Name Award Legal Cost Profit

Fillingham $ 7,801 $ 5,095 $ 2,706

O'Neil 12,801 5,095 7,706

Steger 12,801 5,095 7,706

Williams 12,801 5,095 7,706

NOTE: Besides the "Court Profit," from the

Judgment Awards, these four land developers,

with the other 29 Plaintiffs, slowed and/or

stopped Winslows, Paynter, Floyd, Curtis,

Cornwell, and Heagney from seling Morgan

Heights property, which meant virtually no

competition from Morgan Heights.

PAYNTER/WARNER a PAYNTER/FLOYD/CORNWELL/

CONDO SITE ———> aN HEGNEY/CURTIS PROPERTY

=

ROLLING w

HILLS THREE LAKES INC. PROPERTY

JOHN MORGAN HEIGHTS \) MANAGED BY

FILLINGHAM KEITH WILLIAMS [) COUNTY ATTORNEY

CONDO SITE \ E.ORD WELLS

FORT MORGAN

COUNTRY CLUB

—_—_>. »..

- VW-€T -

NOM FACIE RAN Rone °

— Se

ee ey

gouTe PLATTE arver

“dad XIGNGddvV

D. E. STEGER DEVELOPMENT CITY OF hte crt ie pol

PROPERTY SOUTHEAST CORNER/| FT. MORGAN BRUSH, COLORADO

CITY OF FT. MORGAN ss ——s

THE WINSLOW MORGAN HEIGHTS CASE

Prologue

This Winslow Morgan Heights Case start-

ed 21 Jun 79, and still has not been con-

cluded. It is the longest running case in

the history of the Colorado 13th Judicial

District with adbe than 2,500 pleadings/doc-

uments/exhibits. The Winslows legal fees

are in excess of $200,000. This is why they

are Pro Se. They canno longer afford the

luxury of an attorney.

Just a few days ago (22 Mar 84), Attor-

ney Robert J. Dyer III, representing the

Plaintiffs, and supposedly representing the

Absent Class Members, submitted bills of more

than $329,000 to the Morgan County District

Court. He petitioned the Trial Court to

collect more than $5,000 per lot from present

and previous Morgan Heights property owners,

which includes the Winslows' three children,

and the Attorney who represented Winslows in

this case. (Several own two or more lots.)

There are 71 of 105 Absent Class Mem-

bers who stated they wanted no part of At-

torney Dyer's representation and NEVER did.

They PROTESTED by Court testimony, special

appearances in the Court by several, affi-

davits and letters filed in the Trial Court,

and by “opt-out forms” over the past four

years thatthey wanted NOTHING to do with

Attorney Dyer or the lawsuit.

When the U.S. Supreme Court reviews

this Petition For Certiorari, it is believ-

ed it will be appalled by the injustice

and severe U.S. Constituional violations

made against the Winslows, and the Absent

Class Members as well.

March 27, 1984

be

MORGAN HEIGHTS

P.O. BOX 81 + FT. MORGAN, COLORADO

“a.

> \ Eretting Information

~ MORGAN COUNTY, COLORADO

A NEW CONCEPT IN OGAH4MUNIEY LIFE

;

4). ; A

Geared fa Wester LtUing !

(THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK)

dns

a ¢ a

- 2M > SRE GatD SENRENS OS

at «

MORGAN HEIGHTS Cullding Restrictions

Pert |

RESIDENTIAL COVENANTS

A-1. SINGLE FAMILY OWELLING: No lot shall be used except for residential purposes.

Ne building shall be erected, altered, placed or permitted to remain on any let other than

one detached single family dwelling and a private garage for not more than three cars,

which garage cannot be used for commercial purposes.

A-2. ARCHITECTURAL CONTROL: No building shall be erected, placed, or altered on

any lot until the construction plan and specifications, and « plan showing the location of

the structure, has been approved by the architectural control committee as to the quality

p and material, harmony of external design and dolor with existing struc-

tures, and as to location with respect to topographic and finished grade elevation. No fence

or wall shall be erected, placed or altered on any lot unless sim-

ilarly approved. Approval shall be as provided in Part II

A-3. DWELLING QUALITY AND SIZE: The ground floor of

A-4. SUBDIVISION OF LOTS: No lot shall be subdivided, but

a combination of lots may be used for the construction of a larger

home.

A-5S. LASEMENTS: E mts for i Hation aad

of utilities, and such other services that may be necessary for the

health, wellare and enjoy t resid of said area, are

hereby reserved over the back 5 feet and the side 5 feet of every

lot as indicated on the recorded plat of said subdivision No

structure shall be erected upon

j f

i

it

ii

HW

Ht

tt

i if

i

i

il

i

i

i

!

,

;

i

:

a

£ 438

!

t

!

|

|

|

il

|

expressly reserved unto Morgan Heights, Inc., to go

the property of any owner or

upon

owners for the purpose of drilling for and supplying water to the other property owner or

owners, and an casement for the maintenance

erty of properties.

A-12. SEWAGE DISPOSAL: Sewage disposal shall be under the absolute contro! of the

architectural control committee and shall be handled by Morgan Heights, Inc. All prop-

erties shall be subject to essesement for the maintenance of said sewage disposal propor-

tienate to the use of said system.

|

MORGAN HEIGHTS

te Large building sits, ideal for

ow aa recreational area for

ishing, hiki seen

other activities. Golf course

_Slose by. satin + 4 ~

¥%& Controlled heme construction,

assuring maintained real estate

values.

% No alleys to become cluttered.

% Fabulous view.

%& Single family dwellings only.

% Community-owned and operated

water and sanitation system.

% Financing arranged.

%& A wonderful place to raise

children.

%& A peaceful place to live.

¥%& A marvelous place to retire.

said well or wells is hereby cxpressly

2

A-18. VEHICLE PARKING: Owners of said property shal! not

be permitted to park, of cause to be parked, automobiles, trucks or

i

:

:

E

;

:

i

wous liquors or other intoxicants shall be conducted

for the storage of fuel shall be buried except that « tank for

munity heating may be located above the ground upon approval of

the architectwral comtrel committee.

Pere i

COMMITTEE

8-1. MEMBERSMIP: The architectural control committee is

a

MS:

MORGAN

— fe J

-———_—

LY Geared to Westou

—

; >

HOW TO GET THERE—Mor-

gan Heights is located approxi-

mately three and a half miles

complete building restrictions,

see inside.)

northeast of Ft. Morgan, Colo-

rado. In order to get there, go

to the intersection of Main Street

and Platte Avenue, where the

stop lights are located on U.S. 6

34 in the center of Ft. Mor-

gan. Turn north and go two

miles (you will cross the South

Platte River and the Union Pa-

cific tracks); then go west to the

Ft. Morgan Country Club; bear

on north about a quarter mile to

the Morgan Heights sign. AND

THERE YOU ARE!

RECREATION AREA — Mor-

gan Heights adjoins the Ft. Mor-

gan Country Club on the north,

thus golfers will find it con-

ood e | venient for play. No doubt

many will enjoy a game before

breakfast and before going to

work. A little farther to the

west is an 80-acre area with

many ponds for the enjoyment

of residents who prefer fishing,

hiking or horseback riding. Pic-

nics can be fun beside one of the

colorful ponds under a shaded

willow tree. The youngsters can

MAGNIFICENT VIEW—

Probably the biggest feature of Morgan Heights is the tre-

mendous view you have to the west, south, and east. You can

see the mountains to the west on most days; you can see the

Adena Field, Colorado's second largest producing oil field, to

the south (a terrific sight at night); and Brush and Fremont

Buttes to the cast. (The Buttes are located several miles west

of Akron, Colorado.) A picture window in a Morgan Heights

home can have the depth of 40 to 80 miles, an advantage few

home owners in the United States can

enjoy.

BUILDING RESTRICTIONS-— Resi-

dents in Morgan Heights can be as-

sured that the value of their property

will always be maintained because of

the strict building covenants. (For

catch perch or blue gill, while

dad tries his luck at bass in the north ae (It's reported

that 12-inch bass are plentiful, but difficult to land.) The

ponds offer the kids ice skating in winter; the hills, sledding

or tobogganing.

TELEVISION RECEPTION—For those who enjoy tele-

vision, Morgan Heights will offer an extra thrill in video

viewing. This is ble because Morgan Heights is more

than 100 feet higher thes Ft. Morgan in most places. TV

tests showed Channel Four to register

10,000 microvolts in the Heights as

compared to 175 in Ft. Morgan; Chan- -«.(\

nel Nine, 3,200 to 125; Channel ao --y

Seven, 2,200 to 100. An attic antenna,

which won't show, is all that will be

- we

eo

1

Siete ed eee

-

COSOHNHE FEGISTERES PROFESSIONAL ENG. nEEe

SVGEHE ©. OTERHOERSG. CrTY #

ectcue

~-~- Fe een rnrnr ee = = — FOO ee

Vi

4

df} '

ay £ !

! ee,

mu — * f

! w

i i ify

i !

\ a

{ I73:~;

a «= («CS

fe ieee

es

Vv

os” =f

'

t

7

bd '

- <=... 4

att >

a ea.

ni '

thir ’

. es

nh. '

ii

'

{

J

"INV OIZIINV?

4.2 ~-— eee eee eae eae ecco s eoooseo eos

| .40@8 000 aiietan. ~

~

4

ee eee ——

. F ati si

eT pth Galli

abate fini .

Hila le hye et

; r Ez HE trbtaaa (Ese ie AE E

LEH eth (2 HEL hee iy

Rae ite dea a eha

my SLRS A Hie

rr tis $b aes ro" § 1 12 2 be345 é

thie He ol eet

852 258 S5% 2227-8223

[‘.. eee

Tae FIRST MORGAN HEIGHTS HOME

EUGENE ©. STERNBERG « ARCHITECT

om. - os

?

as

_ “

QUESTIONS «<. ANSWERS

mre,

for the future development of Mor ean i

Newnan of Namen Hapeer™e

vou te

Ys ee ee Pe

ane a dt

Heat lind ge aye ie

ue i Li pus i hat

¥eis il eS i att

f i ner j ee

i dike Heir aby

pe . ava Hi Pe OF i

MTS

GAN HEIG

ON MQR

.

‘ting

7

4

. F

uty "eee

| r t 2 i U i *]

2 == 3*s Fi : ~3e & _ iil 3

it a dH iy et a Wb”

tt | sd i oa

iH Lie fy lll: Hy Gali pi af

BG 78 13] i LAL at F ; Hi

Ht fi i i ie ah. i is a i :

i . He # Hi ah Hak fait : i i

ef a a haere

uF 7 fs RH ate its i itl

r i i, iy tut iF iF 3! is pe N i I :

Ziad ad Bs he mi: =

regards to construction costs, financing, etc.

Otber similar bome plans also available.

ie

Here are two contemporary interiors in a Eugene D. Sternberg designed

hame located isi Denver, Colorado.

These are the type of interiors contemplated in some of the homes in Morgan

Heights. Note the open beam ceilings, the natural-wood finishes, the indirect

lighting, and the exposed brick walls, which lend a practical and attractive

appearance for modern twentieth centuzy living.

% : us — is a « eee Sete Sh Se bal Su

(THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK)

snaihiamntie aboot detaitt on shit home seith

regards to construction costs, financing, ete.

Other similar bume plans also available.

Here are two contemporary interiors in a Eugene D. Sternberg designed

home located iri Denver, Colorado.

These are the type of interiors contemplated in some of the homes in Morgan

Heights. Note the open beam ceilings, the natural-wood finishes, the indirect

lighting, and the exposed brick walls, which lend a practical and attractive

appearance for modern twentieth century living.