register |  login
› PARKER
Loading Ad
Visit Other Hubs:
ADVERTISEMENT
Loading Tower
RECENT STORIES

Commentary on Nick Van Duren
Contributed by: Kory Nelson on 9/28/2006

"Never attribute to malice what can be adequately explained by stupidity."
-- Hanlon's Razor

Nick Van Duren hates me, but I forgive him. Nick doesn't know me, but his rabidAug. 4column in The Parker Chronicle was a spectacular angry tirade, as was his Aug. 11 column in the famous Magic City Morning Star (the only online newspaper covering the Katahdin area of Millinocket, East Millinocket,and Medway, Maine; yes, Maine!?) His use of Dr. Kevorkian's nickname for me leaves no doubt that Nick doesn't just dislike me, Nick hates me. That's just sad. As Lawana Blackwell put it in The Dowry of Miss Lydia Clark, "The hatred you're carrying is a live coal in your heart - far more damaging to yourself than to them." I don't dislike Nick; I don't even know him. I forgive Nick and wish him speedy healing.

Nick's blackened heart would seem surprising, since we've met only once, at a Town of Parker public meeting in early June - just after I moved to Parker. The meeting was an open forum for town citizens to provide feedback on a possible ordinance to address dangerous dogs. Upon verifying my identity, Nick's buddy, R.J. O'Connor (a pit bull owner) formally objected to my very presence at the public meeting. What did I ever do to deserve such a tantrum from Nickand R.J? I moved into their town without their permission. Nick is so worried about his personal political agenda that he is willing to go to any extreme to silence anyone who thinks differently than he - including stomping upon their constitutional rights and attempting to intimidate them. Oh, Nick believes in his 1st Amendment rights, alright; he just doesn't believe that anyone with whom he disagrees should have any.

Strange, don't you think, that Nick would utilize his mighty pen and the powerful presses of The Parker Chronicle (and T he Morning Star -- in Maine) for such a singular purpose as to viciously spit such venomous ink in attacking just one citizen - a citizen who is not running for any elected office or any administrative position in Parker? Maybe Nick had some delusion of power and control in the public forum process and he became intimidated by my presence. You see, I know the truth that Nick doesn't want anyone else to know. I make Nick nervous, because his personal political agenda is based upon lies, mistruths, deception and most importantly - irrational emotional arguments intended to mislead and scare the uninformed - all tactics usually employed by the radical liberal left.

Most readers wouldn't understand the cause of Nick's perverse hatred of me, but I've become accustomed to such irrational diatribes. My professional success as an attorney in litigation on behalf of my client in a 2004-05 lawsuit has brought out a large amount of hate mail from pit bull advocates, breeders and dog fighters. The litigation, which my employer assigned to me, reconfirmed the controlling legal authority of the 1991 decision of the Colorado Supreme Court that preserved Denver's 1989 pit bull ban, and resulted in a large volume of organized hate mail, usually directed at my client, but addressed to me.

What causes such anger? Irrational emotional anthropomorphic sentiments combined with a basic misunderstanding of both the relevant scientific evidence and the governing legal issues surrounding Breed Specific Legislation -- all fueled by an organized propaganda campaign by Nick and his co-conspirators - tend to incite some people to vent and say nasty things. Another source of this maliciousness is the financial interests of pit bull breeders and dog fighters in their breeding stock of pit bulls and other fighting dogs that fetch high breeding feed (up to $3,000-$5,000) and bring millions of dollars in illicit underground professional dog fights.

Last year, according to the HSUS, just one dog fight tournament brought a top prize of $500,000 Dog fighters now include "street fighter" - often members of street gangs who engage in impromptu dog fights for street credibility; I even received a threatening e-mail from a pit bull breeder who is a gang member in Tucson, who's now under investigation. I'm just the "face" that they have identified to this litigation in Denver from the propaganda on the Internet, like Nick's.

Nick's frothing propaganda, disguised as an opinion piece loaded with factual misreporting, however, leaves a lot to be desired when it comes to the rational, relevant facts. What Nick didn't tell you was that the narrow legal issue involved in the litigation was the state constitutional law principle of "home-rule authority" -- municipalities' right to self-determination on issues of pure local concern.

A basic principle of conservative Republican political theory states "The best form of government is that which is closest to the people." My client's lawsuit against the State of Colorado proved that Rep. Debbie Stafford (R. -Elbert County; site of the horrific 2002 fatal multiple pit bull mutilation of Jennifer Brooke) and the state legislature violated the Colorado constitution in usurping the home-rule authority of local municipalities (such as the Town of Parker) in passing HB04-1279, which prohibited dangerous dog regulations based upon breed.

As just one assistant city attorney out of many (here is the proof that Nick once again relied upon the false facts on the Internet by erroneously identifying me as a "Deputy DA"), I was assigned the job to protect my client's constitutional rights to self-determination as a home rule city. The subject matter just happened to strike Nick's nerve - the regulation of dangerous dogs.

Nick's reliance upon the Internet as the source of his information was simply misguided, as his facts about me are simply wrong; for example, my client's ordinance pre-dated my hire date - I had no part in the passage of the ordinance. I wasn't even involved in the initial round of litigation before the Colorado Supreme Court -- who decided in 1991 that the ordinance was constitutional because there was sufficient factual evidence to support a rational conclusion that differential treatment of pit bulls was justifiable.

Facts? Nick doesn't need any, thank you; he's not interested in the truth - otherwise he would have had the decency to check his facts, or at least call me before writing his pit bull of a column.

What caused of Nick's problem with anger management? Well, Nick is simply misguided. Nick is "The Colorado Director" of "Responsible Dog Owners of the Western States", an organization that has Cherie Graves as their chairwoman, and she is undoubtedly the one who is pulling Nick's strings. The phrase 'Responsible Dog Owners of _____" is code for a lobbying organization of pit bull advocates and pit bull breeders of the region. Cherie is personally responsible for organizing a good number of these organizations online across the nation.

Cherie really, really hates me - as she is one of the leading pit bull breeders (Washington) organizing all of the pit bull advocates via the Internet. Nick is Cherie Graves' local lackey, and they belong to the same political mindset as Stafford -- they feel self-righteous enough that their will should be imposed upon everyone else through a consolidation of power at a higher level of government - a key hallmark of the Democrat political philosophy. However, that small thing called the Colorado State Constitution and its preservation of Republican values of local governmental control just keep getting in the way; right, Nick?

Mad Nick strangely started his column by commenting on current Republican candidates in Douglas County. His little foray off into this side-circus issue was so nonsensical as to leave any Republican reader to ponder the veracity of Nick's self-proclamation of his party affiliation - especially since his nuisance barking had never before been heard by the county party. Apparently Nick's efforts at googling my name revealed my involvement on the local political scene as a Douglas County resident and my endorsements of DCGOP candidates. Nick shamelessly attempted to attack those good Republicans by awkwardly trying to link them to my client's legal position in this one lawsuit that just rehashed the 1989-91 litigation. Nick, Nick, Nick....that tactic is right out of Hillary Clinton's playbook.

These good Douglas County Republicans know me to be a U.S. Army Veteran who served on the Berlin Wall during the Cold War (just as former Douglas County Sheriff Mike Acree did before me), a career prosecutor dedicated to protect the public from all dangers - gang bangers, drug dealers, wife beaters, owners of unsafe buildings, unsafe commercial vehicles, dangerous dogs and contaminated meth labs.

I prosecuted Ward Churchill under the Rule of Law, while Democrat State Senator Ken Gordon defended him using jury nullification arguments. I believe in truth, justice, and the American Way. The American Way, Nick, is to resolve legal disputes in courts - using relevant evidence and the Rule of Law. The American Way, Nick, is to allow a representative democratic process of self-determination for communities to decide for themselves issues of local concern.

Even Nick would agree with me that the American Way is let everyone have their say in public meetings. But, Nick -- Americans don't attempt to silence opponents either by objecting to the exercise of their 1st Amendment rights, or by abusing the power of the press in an attempt to intimidate them. I know many good Republicans, Nick, I served with them on the Berlin Wall, defending freedom and worked along side them in the DCGOP to obtain the highest voter turnout in the entire country.

But Nick, you're not a good Republican. Your little "tag" at the end of your Chronicle column states "Staunch defender of the Bill of Rights!" Hah! Shame on you, Nick, for abusing the Bill of Rights to attempt to deny me my 1st Amendment rights. I may be exposing your hypocrisy, but I do forgive you.

It may not be Nick's fault - Nick is probably just guilty of following Cherie Grave's marching orders, relying upon her "research" for his article on the Internet. Not exactly the best way for an objective journalist to operate - but I doubt anyone, including his editor, has ever called Nick "objective".

Why bother with the truth when Cherie Graves' old mistruths on the Internet serve Nick's political agenda?

So let's set the record straight on a few mistruths that Nick used as propaganda. Nick can't seem to comprehend the nuances in legal analysis that allows a separation between my different roles - one role as an attorney representing my client and another role in my own personal political activities as an active member of the Douglas County Republican party since 2002 (psst, Nick, that wastwo years before HB04-1279, which started my involvement in this issue).

The GOP's role in pet ownership is non-existent because it's not a national issue, Nick. Just because Nick and Cherie want to make it a national issue, doesn't make it one. It's a local issue, Nick, and that's one of the universal truths that you don't want me to tell.

The United States Supreme Court confirmed that local governmental authorities can regulate animals for the public safety back in 1897 (that's not a typo), when they confirm pets are only qualified property. Here's one truth Nick doesn't want me to tell - citizens only have the privilege to possess domesticated animals to the extent that local government may allow them to have them while weighing the need to protect everyone's health, safety and welfare. (This is why rabies vaccinations can be required)

Nick's barking over an issue that was resolved by the highest court in America before the end of the 19th century. Nick simply doesn't understand the basic legal principle of stare decisis that grants finality to legal disputes decided by the highest court. That's OK, Nick, you don't have any legal education and aren't an elected official - I forgive your ignorance.

Nick, it may be easier for you and Cherie Graves to believe that I had some type of "power" over the Town of Parker to compel them to consider their own pit bull ban ... it just makes your little world easier to protect if there is some type of vast "conspiracy".

FYI - the world doesn't work that way. It's a matter of professional courtesy amongst local government attorneys to share their legal research and litigation experiences. That's really why Nick-Cherie hates me - I share the truth. The record is clear that the issue of a pit bull ban was examined by the Parker town council, and after consideration of the public comment, the town council has decided not to proceed forward with it.

That's OK with me - that is their decision to make. I wasn't a resident of Parker when that debate was going on - and I didn't participate in the debate. It's strange that Nick-Cherie won the battle in getting a pit bull ban taken off the table, yet they still want to complain about it. Maybe they fear the town of Parker's response to the next horrific pit bull attack upon a child. I just fear that inevitable, but preventable, human tragedy.

Rabid Nick-Cherie really got all lathered up over statements attributed to me in the June 27, 2005 San Francisco Chronicle column by Chip Johnson, entitled Pit bull threat, time to get clear, about the pit bull problem in San Francisco (12-year-old Nick Faibish was killed by his two pet pit bulls).

I don't blame Nick/Cherie for being mad - I simply blame Chip Johnson for misquoting me. Oh sure, I spoke with Mr. Johnson about the factors that make pit bulls dangerous, but I adamantly deny telling him that no matter the circumstances, any person would be legally justified in shooting any pit bull. Mr. Johnson is bad at the details (a really bad trait for a journalist) - he also claimed I was the city attorney, failing to add the important "assistant" to that. Chip simply got it wrong and attributed to me a statement that clearly was intended to advance his column's capacity to agitate his readers (something editors value). I admit that statement is very extreme in its position ... it's just not true. My opinion on this point is completely different than Chip Johnson would have you believe.

What is true is there are thousands of pit bulls that will be fine, loyal pets, but there are those that are destined to kill or maime their human or another beloved pet. There is a large difference between the known scientific facts about pit bulls that would be reasonable to consider during a person's close encounter with an unfamiliar pit bull running at large and an overreaction towards a neighbor's known and socialized pet that poses no possible danger behind a secure fence or controlled through a leash and muzzle. Unfortunately, Mr. Johnson's false quotation regrettably added fodder to the propaganda machine of Cherie Graves and Nick Van Duren and their friends.

So in the end, Nick, I just believe that every community should make the decision for themselves. If they don't have a problem with pit bulls, why should they even consider a pit bull ban? However, the truth is that there are legitimate, justifiable reasons for a community to do so. I know, because I proved it in a court of law - again! But Nick, attempting to kill the messenger doesn't change the truth - the emperor still has no clothes. But Nick, I forgive you; you and Cherie are just on the dull side of Hanlon's Razor.

Kory Nelson*

*This letter contains my own opinion, based upon the known facts stated and the logical conclusions that are drawn from those facts, and in no way represents the opinion or official position of my employer or any client.


SUBMIT COMMENT

Rate the above story



Current Rating
Based on 5 user ratings.

Talk Back : submit comments to the story

*Note: you need to log-in to add a comment or rating.

Showing 1-9 of 9 comments
Submitted By: Kory Nelson
posted on 10/2/2006 @ 6:28:27 AM
(Not Rated)
TO ALL COMMENTARY CONTRIBUTORS: I'll challenge each of you to put your town of residence in your comments, as it's clear that Rabid Nick has contacted crazy Cherie in Washington State, so all of her pit bull lackies from accross the nation may be chiming in...w/o standing up and identifying where you sit, it will be clear where you stand...in the pit. I'll cover the bases of this debate in a separate article..too limited here.
[Report as objectionable]
Submitted By: Leisa Boysen
posted on 9/30/2006 @ 10:44:39 AM
(Not Rated)
Mr Nelson; You can attempt to justify the deaths of over a thousand innocent animals by a lengthy diatribe but it is just not effective. As for the repeated assurances of forgiveness to Mr Van Duran and Ms. Graves, I have posted my thoughts on this in the story section under the title Forgiveness? http://denver.yourhub.com/PARKER/Stories/Pets/General-Pets/Story~131672.aspx
[Report as objectionable]
Submitted By: Norm Higgs
posted on 9/30/2006 @ 2:32:53 AM
Rated Story
"One more thing, Kory. "I was just doing my job" and "my boss told me to do it" are not excuses to leave your morals and ethics at the door." I'd like point out to Kory, that this 'defense' was also used by nearly every Nazi hanged at Nuremburg. Oh, and why did you feel the need to change the title of your article from "Rabid Nick Van Duren" to "Commentary on Nick Van Duren"? Maybe you realized that it highlighted you hypocrisy a little to clearly?
[Report as objectionable]
Submitted By: Mary Nagy
posted on 9/29/2006 @ 7:15:50 PM
(Not Rated)
Mr. Nelson, You have no grasp of the facts or truth. I feel sorry for someone who is so misguided, who works so hard to misguide others. These dogs are wonderful. The myths you throw out to the public are just that, myths. Your attempt to blacken the characters of Nick and Cherie says a lot about your character. Yes, some have bitten and even killed people and children. Whose fault is that? Their owners' fault! For every one that is a problem there are literally hundreds of thousands of wonderful pets, well-adjusted, socialized, never a threat to anyone! All breeds can bite and even kill. The owner is the difference between a dangerous dog and one that is not. You seem to be on a crusade to eradicate every last specimen of these breeds. What next? Goldens? Labs? They bite too! You know nothing at all about these breeds. You make it appear that all owners of these breeds are dog fighters. That's ludicrous!Mary Nagy
[Report as objectionable]
Submitted By: Cherie Graves
posted on 9/29/2006 @ 3:30:45 PM
Rated Story
Read Cherie Graves response to Kory Nelson on RDOWS new blog. http://denver.yourhub.com/PARKER/Blogs/News-Politics/Commentary/Blog~131504.aspx?IsDraft=False
[Report as objectionable]
Submitted By: Steve Barker
posted on 9/29/2006 @ 2:29:43 PM
(Not Rated)
Kory, your public comments, without being misquoted, have made it abundantly clear what you think of pit bull owners. Even in your letter here, you slyly try to link legitimate groups of concerned dog owners with pit bull fighters. Even the Humane Society of the United States, whose past actions may indicate a bias AGAINST pit bull owners, says that a maximum of 4% of pit bulls might be used in dog fighting, although I believe that number to be much lower. Is it so hard to believe that those fighting breed bans are simply dog owners fed up with being targeted because of the physical appearance of their dogs? Many members of these groups don't own pit bulls at all. Are they somehow secretly linked with dog fighters as well? How about the American Kennel Club and the American Veterinary Medical Association? Are they also secret dog fighters? One more thing, Kory. "I was just doing my job" and "my boss told me to do it" are not excuses to leave your morals and ethics at the door.
[Report as objectionable]
Submitted By: Selma Mulvey
posted on 9/29/2006 @ 2:12:11 PM
(Not Rated)
It looks as though Kory Nelson is still using taxpayer-funded resources to promote his personal agenda of discrimination against dog owners. Having spent years researching the issue, I can flatly state that there is no scientific, statistical or experiential evidence to support the position held by Mr Nelson and others of his ilk with respect to dogs. None whatsoever. I have interviewed experts in the field, and those who testify for money in favour of breed bans. Even they have been unable to supply me with any factual evidence to support their bias - they offer nothing but personal opinion and fabrication. Rather than launching personal attacks, Mr Nelson would do well to actually study the issue he claims to grasp. Education might quell some of his fear of dog owners. If Mr Nelson is so confident, why does he NOT run for public office and see how he makes out at the polls?
[Report as objectionable]
Submitted By: Nick Van Duren
posted on 9/29/2006 @ 1:45:48 PM
(Not Rated)
I’m just frothing at the mouth in an effort to promote open and active pet-friendly communities. Let us never forget that the victim here is not Kory Nelson, but literally thousands of family pets that Kory has fought so hard to remove and destroy; he’s used the law as his means. And that is why he has been exposed for what he has done and what he represents. Now his neighbors are aware of it too...as they should be. There are a lot of questions as to why Kory does what he does. The results are there for all to see. Just Google Kory Nelson and come to your own conclusions. Not everyone seduces local governments into imposing discriminatory breed bans, rampant dog-slaughter, and intrusive ordinances designed not to create, but to destroy. Man's Best Friend is under attack; a relationship that goes back thousands of years. Why would anyone try to destroy that? Why would anyone promote such an obsessive and destructive agenda? Nick Van Duren, Rabid Protector of Pet Ownership
[Report as objectionable]
Submitted By: hermine stover
posted on 9/29/2006 @ 12:49:00 PM
(Not Rated)
No dog is capable of a knowledge of the LAW. This is a flaw shared by some attorneys. We are against the targeting of the dog instead of the dog OWNER, for it is the dog owner who is in charge. Dogs do not plot and scheme to commit crimes. PEOPLE DO. Mr Nelson burns up a lot of time and space to say what a GOOD GUY he is and how ill-informed are the folks at Responsible Dog Owners...but Mr Nelson uses anything, proven, unproven, thought possibly to be the truth, maybe kind of sort of, in his campaign to wipe out whole races of dog. In the nineties it was the Chow Chow which drew his sword and caused him to call out for the shedding of dog blood. Now it is the ubiquitous "pit bull"; (there being no such breed). Cherie Graves does not breed American Pit Bull Terriers. Hermine Stover, Secretary and Media Liaison Responsible Dog Owners Of The Western States
[Report as objectionable]
Showing 1-9 of 9 comments
CONTRIBUTOR INFORMATION

Kory Nelson

Parker , CO

Kory Nelson has posted 21 stories and 8 comments since joining on 9/25/2006. Kory Nelson 's average story rating is 4.
SAVE AND SHARE THIS STORY
STORY RSS FEEDS
WANT TO WRITE FOR YOURHUB.COM?
Want to see the stories you write and the photos you shoot featured in the YourHub.com Thursday print section available all over the Front Range and with home subscriptions of the Rocky Mountain News and The Denver Post? All you have to do is register, then post a story or column, start a blog or tell everyone what events are happening in town. We will print the best stories, columns, event listings, photos and blog entries in our print sections.

ADVERTISEMENT
Loading Ad

Loading Ad
ADVERTISEMENT
Loading Ad

This YourHub.com community is produced by The Denver Newspaper Agency
Web Development and Channel Analytics provided by Indigio

terms of use //  privacy policy
the staff //  advertise //  help & faq
buy photos