If there is a 'dialogue' with secular progressives, the brand of Juday dialogue isn't any resemblance to true scientific dialogue which is the unbiased search for truth without personal or emotional involvement or reason. In the case of a campaign with a target or objective, ground crews service the "thing"; and the "thing" delivers the pay load for the missile master-mind. Same when a rocket-scientist designs a political campaign to put himself in public office; in Longmont's Special Election the "thing" or vehicle is the web site producing the campaign finance "pay load". True to his would be spending of public funds neither does he respect the value of his supporter's things that would propel him into office if truth in this case were to get in his way to seeking office. Otherwise why would he deny a simple fact, why not pay the fine and get on with life on his own merit's, not twisting the truth of circumstances to impute a false image of perfect infallibility by virtue of profession? Are not the professional television ads Candidate Hansen used in the fall things of value that could be used over and over again to elect him to office? We don't know because there is no full disclosure.

As witnessed by the angry attacks against the article "Longmont, Enforce the Fair Campaign Practices Act", anyone who holds that the voluntary community is under attack as they oppose the involuntary collectivism the new Bloc is imposing. In a genuine community, the decisions most directly affecting the lives of citizens are made locally and voluntarily. Some are carried out by local political bodies, others by private associations; as long as they are kept local, and are marked by the general agreement of those affected, they constitute a healthy community. But when these functions pass by usurpation to centralized Bloc authority on City Council, with secular progressives at the microphones and outsiders dictating partisan policy and micromanaging administrative decisions; then the whole community of Longmont is in serious danger as the facts of the matter come into full disclosure about the "change".

_________________________________________________________

Dear Mrs. Skitt,

With all due respect, 2.04.203 goes on to say in

"Contribution means", Section 4. "Anything of value given, directly or indirectly, to a candidate for the purpose of promoting the candidate's nomination, retention, recall, or election."

The nature of the contribution may well include services. Those Services are not the subject of the complaint. The electronic web site is a "Thing of value" by virtue of inclusion of the "PayPal" election fund donation collection on the site. In application of the word "thing" it need not be physical; a virtual or electronic thing is a matter of concern in this special election state of affairs. Therefore, from the Clerk's own findings a prima facia case of violation of said election practices occurred with the candidate's failure to disclose 41 days prior to their scheduled election dates. The factual matter of splitting hairs is for a Judge and/or Jury to determine; not within the Charter Authority now of the City Council, City Manager or City Clerk. The acts of commission and omission are historical fact; the omnipotent law of strict liability is on the books, political intercession at this point is a claim of political infallibility over the Rule of Law. Council has my agreement if they wish to change this law some believe is over-strict; however, it is the obligation of the City of Longmont to enforce the law equally so long as it is on the books and the Courts to compensate for "unfairness" in the process; changing the law is the function of the Council.

Very truly,

From: Valeria_Skitt@ci.longmont.co.us

Sent: Wednesday, January 23, 2008 6:54 PM

To: Rich Yale

Cc: City_Council_&_Mayor@ci.longmont.co.us

Subject: Re: Complaint: Longmont Fair Campaign Practices Act, Ord.

0-2000-36

Attachments: pic12891.jpg; Web Page.max; juday010808.pdf

Mr. Yale:

I have reviewed your complaint regarding a potential Longmont Fair Campaign Practices Act violation on the part of candidate Richard Juday and also Council member Brian Hansen. You allege that Mr. Juday and Council member Hansen did not report in-kind contributions when they failed to report "the retail value of the web services donated."

According to Longmont Fair Campaign Practices Act (LFCPA) 2.04.203:

"Contribution" does not include services provided without compensation by individuals volunteering their time on behalf of a candidate, candidate committee, political committee or issue committee."

After talking with candidate Juday, it is my understanding that Mr. Wray (aka magicguru) donated his time and services as a web designer to both Mr. Juday's campaign and Mr. Hansen's campaigns. He did not charge either individual for designing or hosting their websites. Unless you have evidence to the contrary, it does not appear that either Mr. Juday or Mr.

Hansen have violated the LFCPA as they are not required to report "services provided without compensation."

Thank you,

Valeria Skitt

Director of Administration/City Clerk

303-651-8650