Update on Ron Swift/Randy Hatlee Hearing August 1st, 2012

A special note: Pinecam won't allow this summary on because they are in the tank for Ron Swift and Randy Hatlee.
SUMMARY OF HEARING

Ron Swift and Randall Hatlee Trial and Echo Valley Ranch Horse Update
August 4, 2012

The wheels of justice continue to slowly turn. On Wednesday, August 1, 2012 at the
Park County Court House in Fairplay, Colorado another motion hearing involving
defendants Mr. Ron Swift and Mr. Randall J. Hatlee was held (cases 2012 M 43 and M
44). Each of the Defendants is facing several counts of animal cruelty stemming from an
inspection of the Echo Valley Ranch in Park County on which both men board and/or
keep horses. Both men appeared for the hearing.

Once again, the hearing began precisely at 2:30 p.m. After calling the case, Judge Brian
Green apparently referring to papers filed by the Defendants since the last hearing (June
18, 2012) pointed out that the Defendants’ “motion to dismiss” was not filed in a timely
fashioned and asked why. Mr. Darrel Campbell, representing the defendants, was
unable to answer and the motion was promptly denied. It is worth noting that Mr.
Campbell seemed as he had in the past, confused and unsure of the simplest of
procedures in criminal court. Mr. Campbell admitted such during the Defendants’ May
15, 2012 hearing. Yet the website of Laff Campbell Tucker & Gordon, LLP, claims Mr.
Campbell’s practice areas include criminal defense. Go figure.

Judge Green then asked to hear argument for the Defendants’ motion seeking to
sanction the prosecution for alleged discovery violations. Mr. Campbell asserted that his
clients were the victims of adverse publicity and that actions by the DA’s office and the
Park County Sheriff Office (PCSO) were the cause of it. Awkwardly and rather
inarticulately, Mr. Campbell complained that “pictures”, a YouTube video and a “slide
presentation” had been posted on the Internet which included evidence gathered by the
PCSO and intended to be used by the prosecution. Mr. Campbell argued that as such,
evidence in the case had been compromised and that any potential jury would be
influenced by it to the disadvantage of his clients. In the place of good lawyering, Mr.
Campbell offered that it was “nearly impossible to establish prejudice” and that “this is a
new world”. Defeating his argument further, he speculated that a future jury will have
learned something “whatever that is” of the case, and would surely be prejudiced
because of it. He said he could find no case law to support his position.

Still, Judge Green agreed to hear his evidence and Mr. Campbell promptly called Betty
Royce, an investigator from the DA’s office. Ms. Royce said she had investigated the
allegation that the DA’s office and/or PCSO had leaked information to the public
regarding its investigation of the Defendants but found no evidence of it. She stated that
some of the images contained in the “slide show” had been released by the PCSO with
the permission of Deputy DA, Steve Sullivan. She also stated that she could not find any
of those images on the Internet when she looked for them on May 17, 2012 and that all
previously posted links to the Dr. Old’s video were broken and inoperable.

The examination of Ms. Royce’s was noteworthy at several levels. First, is that Mr.
Campbell failed to question the absurdity of the DA’s office decision to investigate itself
and the PCSO or in doing so, its ability to produce an unbiased result. Second, was the
failure of Mr. Campbell to clearly establish what “pictures” or video recordings he and
Ms. Royce were referring. And finally, the failure of Mr. LeDoux, who was representing
the People, to insist Mr. Campbell establish the origin, authenticity or relevance of each
item referenced. These fundamental evidentiary questions were made even more
obvious when Ms. Royce stated, “Mr. Ferraro (your humble correspondent) told me the
pictures were from him, ******* ****** and another unidentified party.” Having gleaned
that vague and ambiguous insight, Mr. Campbell apparently thought he’d solved the
mystery of the day and proceeded to dismiss Ms. Royce.

Next Mr. Campbell called PCSO Undersheriff, Monte Gore. The Undersheriff testified he
had in fact communicated with members of the public, published three press releases
regarding the matter and released several images of the Echo Valley Horses after
receiving the permission of DDA Sullivan to do so. The Undersheriff however, testified
he had adhered to his office’s policies (and that of the DA’s office) and released no
information or evidence which violated procedural rules or the rights of the defendants.
He emphasized that any disclosures he made were consistent with his position as
PCSO’s Public Information Officer.

With the score now, 2 and 0 and the prosecution in the lead, Mr. Campbell called
Shelley Ferraro, my wife. Ms. Ferraro was represented by Dagna Ver Der Jagt, Esq.
who got right to business. Judge Green allowed Ms. Ver Der Jagt to address the Court,
of which she promptly convinced to quash the Subpoena Duces Tecum previously
served on Ms. Ferraro. The Judge noted that the subpoena had been improperly served
(neither the Court nor the prosecution had been notified of the subpoena), upping the
score to 3 and 0. The Judge however, allowed Mr. Campbell to preserve some face and
permitted him a limited examination of Ms. Ferraro.

Using a technique frequently taught to second semester law students attending B rated
law schools, Mr. Campbell started by asking Ms. Ferraro to confirm her home address,
which he broadcasted for all those present to hear. Knowing from the statements made
before the Court by Ms. Ferraro’s attorney that she already felt intimidated by the
Defendants and their supporters, he intentionally attempted to intimidate her further.
Among her intimidators, and unmentioned by name by Ms. Van Der Jagt was the halfwitted
town-clown, Mr. **** ********. Following the May 15, 2012, hearing while clad in
a biker outfit, he photographed Ms. Ferraro and others, their vehicles and close-ups of
their license plates while they gathered in the Park County Courthouse parking lot.
Unknown to Mr. Smarty-pants (Campbell) however, was that prior to this hearing Ms.
Ferraro reported to the PCSO that she had been told by a reliable source that Mr. Hatley
had told his colleagues he wanted ***************************************. Though that
allegation would qualify as hearsay, the complaint filed by Mr. Swift with PCSO that Ms.
Ferraro had entered his store, Bailey Depot Feed on May 15, 2012, creating a
disturbance, is not hearsay. The allegation is serious in that it asserts that Ms. Ferraro’s
behavior rose to the level of criminal conduct and had occurred in the presence of five
witnesses. That complaint has been investigated and while the circumstances seem to
still be in dispute, the fact that it was a Ms. **** ***** ****** who entered the store, not
Ms. Ferraro is not in dispute. Thus, there appears to be a pattern; a pattern of threats,
intimidation and deliberate attempts to influence the testimony of Ms. Ferraro (and other
potential witnesses) in this criminal case. Most disturbing is that it seems Mr. Campbell
has decided to join the likes of Mr. ******** and participate. Shame on Mr. Campbell
and his biker pals.

Regardless, Ms. Ferraro’s testimony was short and sweet. Without her prescription
glasses she was unable to read the documents Mr. Campbell hoped to use to embarrass
her and the Prosecution. Visibly frustrated and tired, but now well into the second half
and up against a ticking clock, he excused Ms. Ferraro after a brief cross and redirect.
Seeming to look around for help, he caught sight of the imaginary score board above the
jury box now displaying, 4 to zip.

Next, following a brief evidentiary discussion between the parties and Judge Green, Mr.
Campbell called Ms. ****** ****. Without voir dire or the slightest indication who the
witness might be or her qualifications to offer testimony (or disclosing her home
address), Mr. Campbell examined her. With nary an objection from Mr. LeDoux, Ms.
****, who according to Defendant Hatlee’s Facebook page is *** ********* and get this,
** ****** ******** (wonder who she’s rooting for?), ranted on how the “pictures and
slideshow” were all over cyberspace, with as many as “10,000 blogs” on Pinecam.com
alone. Failing to leave bad enough alone, Mr. Campbell pressed on. Ms. **** eventually
disclosed that in spite of her scouring the Internet the only place she could find the
mysterious and yet properly identified slideshow was on Pinecam.com. Angrily, she said
the slideshow was last viewable on Pinecam.com in late May or early June and that all
known links to it were now inoperable. A more useful witness for the prosecution could
not have been called.

With only minutes left and the score now 5 and 0, Mr. Campbell called former Park
County Animal Control Officer, Cindy Hardey. Ms. Hardy was professional, direct and all
business. She readily corroborated the testimony of Undersheriff Gore and emphasized
that the images (Mr. Campbell insisted on calling them pictures, which they were not)
provided by the PCSO to the public were images of the horses in question taken
sometime after their original seizure and well into their rehabilitation.
Ms. Hardey however testified to something else which the Court and Mr. LeDoux might
find interesting if more closely examined. Ignoring his prior success of convincing the
Court that the horses were forcibly seized without probable cause on April 10, 2012, Mr.
Campbell used Ms. Hardey’s new testimony in an attempt to persuade the Court that his
clients were actually victims who voluntarily surrendered their horses for their safety and
that of their animals. He further argued they were more afraid of the public now because
of evidence allegedly leaked by the PCSO. Neither Mr. Campbell nor Mr. LeDoux
brought the inconsistencies of Ms. Hardey’s testimony to the attention of the Court and
both seemed quite satisfied with its credibility.

The manner in which Mr. Campbell used Ms. Hardey’s testimony was dishonest and
deceptive. If Mr. Campbell’s clients were so afraid for their safety and that of what he
called their “malnourished horses” (he actually called the Defendants’ horses
malnourished three times during the hearing) why did he argue for their return during the
April 10th probable cause hearing? Wouldn’t his clients be more afraid of the public now
that the DA and PCSO offices allegedly released highly prejudicial evidence against
them and insist that Park County take them back? And why haven’t the alleged animal
abusers accepted the public’s offer of $7000 and simply sell the six horses in question
and get them off their property? I think Mr. Campbell owes my wife and people of Park
County an apology.

After excusing Ms. Hardey, Mr. Campbell requested and was granted an in-camera
audience with the Judge and Mr. LeDoux. The hearing concluded at 5:40 p.m.

By the way for those keeping score, Mr. Campbell never scored a point and ultimately
lost his motion for sanctions. He also embarrassed himself with his ineptitude and
probably charged his clients several thousand dollars for the pleasure of it all. Nice work
Darrel.

Eugene F. Ferraro

Geeeez......Can't say I blame PC for not allowing this biased take on the proceedings to be posted.
Was anyone there who can give us an unbiased report of what happened.
I would love to hear the facts and not just a biased opinion represented as fact.

We were there and this is what took place.

And you found NO personal bias in your post?

In a whisper wrote: A special note: Pinecam won't allow this summary on because they are in the tank for Ron Swift and Randy Hatlee.
SUMMARY OF HEARING

Ron Swift and Randall Hatlee Trial and Echo Valley Ranch Horse Update
August 4, 2012

The wheels of justice continue to slowly turn. On Wednesday, August 1, 2012 at the
Park County Court House in Fairplay, Colorado another motion hearing involving
defendants Mr. Ron Swift and Mr. Randall J. Hatlee was held (cases 2012 M 43 and M
44). Each of the Defendants is facing several counts of animal cruelty stemming from an
inspection of the Echo Valley Ranch in Park County on which both men board and/or
keep horses. Both men appeared for the hearing.

Once again, the hearing began precisely at 2:30 p.m. After calling the case, Judge Brian
Green apparently referring to papers filed by the Defendants since the last hearing (June
18, 2012) pointed out that the Defendants’ “motion to dismiss” was not filed in a timely
fashioned and asked why. Mr. Darrel Campbell, representing the defendants, was
unable to answer and the motion was promptly denied. It is worth noting that Mr.
Campbell seemed as he had in the past, confused and unsure of the simplest of
procedures in criminal court. Mr. Campbell admitted such during the Defendants’ May
15, 2012 hearing. Yet the website of Laff Campbell Tucker & Gordon, LLP, claims Mr.
Campbell’s practice areas include criminal defense. Go figure.

Judge Green then asked to hear argument for the Defendants’ motion seeking to
sanction the prosecution for alleged discovery violations. Mr. Campbell asserted that his
clients were the victims of adverse publicity and that actions by the DA’s office and the
Park County Sheriff Office (PCSO) were the cause of it. Awkwardly and rather
inarticulately, Mr. Campbell complained that “pictures”, a YouTube video and a “slide
presentation” had been posted on the Internet which included evidence gathered by the
PCSO and intended to be used by the prosecution. Mr. Campbell argued that as such,
evidence in the case had been compromised and that any potential jury would be
influenced by it to the disadvantage of his clients. In the place of good lawyering, Mr.
Campbell offered that it was “nearly impossible to establish prejudice” and that “this is a
new world”. Defeating his argument further, he speculated that a future jury will have
learned something “whatever that is” of the case, and would surely be prejudiced
because of it. He said he could find no case law to support his position.

Still, Judge Green agreed to hear his evidence and Mr. Campbell promptly called Betty
Royce, an investigator from the DA’s office. Ms. Royce said she had investigated the
allegation that the DA’s office and/or PCSO had leaked information to the public
regarding its investigation of the Defendants but found no evidence of it. She stated that
some of the images contained in the “slide show” had been released by the PCSO with
the permission of Deputy DA, Steve Sullivan. She also stated that she could not find any
of those images on the Internet when she looked for them on May 17, 2012 and that all
previously posted links to the Dr. Old’s video were broken and inoperable.

The examination of Ms. Royce’s was noteworthy at several levels. First, is that Mr.
Campbell failed to question the absurdity of the DA’s office decision to investigate itself
and the PCSO or in doing so, its ability to produce an unbiased result. Second, was the
failure of Mr. Campbell to clearly establish what “pictures” or video recordings he and
Ms. Royce were referring. And finally, the failure of Mr. LeDoux, who was representing
the People, to insist Mr. Campbell establish the origin, authenticity or relevance of each
item referenced. These fundamental evidentiary questions were made even more
obvious when Ms. Royce stated, “Mr. Ferraro (your humble correspondent) told me the
pictures were from him, ******* ****** and another unidentified party.” Having gleaned
that vague and ambiguous insight, Mr. Campbell apparently thought he’d solved the
mystery of the day and proceeded to dismiss Ms. Royce.

Next Mr. Campbell called PCSO Undersheriff, Monte Gore. The Undersheriff testified he
had in fact communicated with members of the public, published three press releases
regarding the matter and released several images of the Echo Valley Horses after
receiving the permission of DDA Sullivan to do so. The Undersheriff however, testified
he had adhered to his office’s policies (and that of the DA’s office) and released no
information or evidence which violated procedural rules or the rights of the defendants.
He emphasized that any disclosures he made were consistent with his position as
PCSO’s Public Information Officer.

With the score now, 2 and 0 and the prosecution in the lead, Mr. Campbell called
Shelley Ferraro, my wife. Ms. Ferraro was represented by Dagna Ver Der Jagt, Esq.
who got right to business. Judge Green allowed Ms. Ver Der Jagt to address the Court,
of which she promptly convinced to quash the Subpoena Duces Tecum previously
served on Ms. Ferraro. The Judge noted that the subpoena had been improperly served
(neither the Court nor the prosecution had been notified of the subpoena), upping the
score to 3 and 0. The Judge however, allowed Mr. Campbell to preserve some face and
permitted him a limited examination of Ms. Ferraro.

Using a technique frequently taught to second semester law students attending B rated
law schools, Mr. Campbell started by asking Ms. Ferraro to confirm her home address,
which he broadcasted for all those present to hear. Knowing from the statements made
before the Court by Ms. Ferraro’s attorney that she already felt intimidated by the
Defendants and their supporters, he intentionally attempted to intimidate her further.
Among her intimidators, and unmentioned by name by Ms. Van Der Jagt was the halfwitted
town-clown, Mr. **** ********. Following the May 15, 2012, hearing while clad in
a biker outfit, he photographed Ms. Ferraro and others, their vehicles and close-ups of
their license plates while they gathered in the Park County Courthouse parking lot.
Unknown to Mr. Smarty-pants (Campbell) however, was that prior to this hearing Ms.
Ferraro reported to the PCSO that she had been told by a reliable source that Mr. Hatley
had told his colleagues he wanted ***************************************. Though that
allegation would qualify as hearsay, the complaint filed by Mr. Swift with PCSO that Ms.
Ferraro had entered his store, Bailey Depot Feed on May 15, 2012, creating a
disturbance, is not hearsay. The allegation is serious in that it asserts that Ms. Ferraro’s
behavior rose to the level of criminal conduct and had occurred in the presence of five
witnesses. That complaint has been investigated and while the circumstances seem to
still be in dispute, the fact that it was a Ms. **** ***** ****** who entered the store, not
Ms. Ferraro is not in dispute. Thus, there appears to be a pattern; a pattern of threats,
intimidation and deliberate attempts to influence the testimony of Ms. Ferraro (and other
potential witnesses) in this criminal case. Most disturbing is that it seems Mr. Campbell
has decided to join the likes of Mr. ******** and participate. Shame on Mr. Campbell
and his biker pals.

Regardless, Ms. Ferraro’s testimony was short and sweet. Without her prescription
glasses she was unable to read the documents Mr. Campbell hoped to use to embarrass
her and the Prosecution. Visibly frustrated and tired, but now well into the second half
and up against a ticking clock, he excused Ms. Ferraro after a brief cross and redirect.
Seeming to look around for help, he caught sight of the imaginary score board above the
jury box now displaying, 4 to zip.

Next, following a brief evidentiary discussion between the parties and Judge Green, Mr.
Campbell called Ms. ****** ****. Without voir dire or the slightest indication who the
witness might be or her qualifications to offer testimony (or disclosing her home
address), Mr. Campbell examined her. With nary an objection from Mr. LeDoux, Ms.
****, who according to Defendant Hatlee’s Facebook page is *** ********* and get this,
** ****** ******** (wonder who she’s rooting for?), ranted on how the “pictures and
slideshow” were all over cyberspace, with as many as “10,000 blogs” on Pinecam.com
alone. Failing to leave bad enough alone, Mr. Campbell pressed on. Ms. **** eventually
disclosed that in spite of her scouring the Internet the only place she could find the
mysterious and yet properly identified slideshow was on Pinecam.com. Angrily, she said
the slideshow was last viewable on Pinecam.com in late May or early June and that all
known links to it were now inoperable. A more useful witness for the prosecution could
not have been called.

With only minutes left and the score now 5 and 0, Mr. Campbell called former Park
County Animal Control Officer, Cindy Hardey. Ms. Hardy was professional, direct and all
business. She readily corroborated the testimony of Undersheriff Gore and emphasized
that the images (Mr. Campbell insisted on calling them pictures, which they were not)
provided by the PCSO to the public were images of the horses in question taken
sometime after their original seizure and well into their rehabilitation.
Ms. Hardey however testified to something else which the Court and Mr. LeDoux might
find interesting if more closely examined. Ignoring his prior success of convincing the
Court that the horses were forcibly seized without probable cause on April 10, 2012, Mr.
Campbell used Ms. Hardey’s new testimony in an attempt to persuade the Court that his
clients were actually victims who voluntarily surrendered their horses for their safety and
that of their animals. He further argued they were more afraid of the public now because
of evidence allegedly leaked by the PCSO. Neither Mr. Campbell nor Mr. LeDoux
brought the inconsistencies of Ms. Hardey’s testimony to the attention of the Court and
both seemed quite satisfied with its credibility.

The manner in which Mr. Campbell used Ms. Hardey’s testimony was dishonest and
deceptive. If Mr. Campbell’s clients were so afraid for their safety and that of what he
called their “malnourished horses” (he actually called the Defendants’ horses
malnourished three times during the hearing) why did he argue for their return during the
April 10th probable cause hearing? Wouldn’t his clients be more afraid of the public now
that the DA and PCSO offices allegedly released highly prejudicial evidence against
them and insist that Park County take them back? And why haven’t the alleged animal
abusers accepted the public’s offer of $7000 and simply sell the six horses in question
and get them off their property? I think Mr. Campbell owes my wife and people of Park
County an apology.

After excusing Ms. Hardey, Mr. Campbell requested and was granted an in-camera
audience with the Judge and Mr. LeDoux. The hearing concluded at 5:40 p.m.

By the way for those keeping score, Mr. Campbell never scored a point and ultimately
lost his motion for sanctions. He also embarrassed himself with his ineptitude and
probably charged his clients several thousand dollars for the pleasure of it all. Nice work
Darrel.

Eugene F. Ferraro

All of the red is what I felt was biased, opinion or just plain inappropriate.

(And I am not even on the other guys side.)

Becky wrote: Geeeez......Can't say I blame PC for not allowing this biased take on the proceedings to be posted.
Was anyone there who can give us an unbiased report of what happened.
I would love to hear the facts and not just a biased opinion represented as fact.

I blame them, then let people respond accordingly. The world runs on biased opinions, including ours.

Pinecam can censor any way they wish.
Where did I say I wasn't for freedom of speech.
PC is a private site.
I stated my opinion in regards to Pinecam. Pure and simple. It CLEARLY was outside their boundaries. (And we ALL know it)
The account above was, IN MY OPINION, a clearly biased commentary on what had occurred and was delivered as a statement of fact when , IN FACT, it was merely an opinion of what had occurred.
I would prefer a court transcript so that I can form my opinion as opposed to having one individual state their opinion as fact and shove it down our collective throats.
Is that a problem with you SC or JMC?
I assume that even this website had to do some moderation given the stars for it to pass here.
Freedom of Speech gives me the right to state my opinion here. It gives you the right to state yours. I take your opinion as just that...an opinion.
The OP offered little in fact and a lot in opinion.

Becky wrote: Pinecam can censor any way they wish.
Where did I say I wasn't for freedom of speech.
PC is a private site.
I stated my opinion in regards to Pinecam. Pure and simple. It CLEARLY was outside their boundaries. (And we ALL know it)
The account above was, IN MY OPINION, a clearly biased commentary on what had occurred and was delivered as a statement of fact when , IN FACT, it was merely an opinion of what had occurred.
I would prefer a court transcript so that I can form my opinion as opposed to having one individual state their opinion as fact and shove it down our collective throats.
Is that a problem with you SC or JMC?
I assume that even this website had to do some moderation given the stars for it to pass here.
Freedom of Speech gives me the right to state my opinion here. It gives you the right to state yours. I take your opinion as just that...an opinion.
The OP offered little in fact and a lot in opinion.

Post it on Pinecam, oops we are all banned, so much for "free speech" Wow sun rising in the west?
2 years ago plenty of calls for "facts only" concerning the election for sheriff. How the worm turns.

Yes JMC...I have been fascinated to see "how the worm turns"

So.....why are some names starred and others not?

Kinda arbitrary.