Dateline; September 9, 2021

On this day three years ago officers James O’Brian and Adam Lunn murdered a young CU student, Demetrius Shankling, 23, by handcuffing him and placing him in a transport van on his stomach, and then forcibly closing the door on him as he lay in the prone position. Sixteen minutes later he was pulled from the van, by his feet, on his face, brain dead. He lived for another twenty-six days, but the last words he would ever speak had already been uttered when he referred to the arresting officers as “dick heads,” which prophetically, they turned out to be.

During the process of his being ‘arrested’ his friends were run-off under threat of also being ‘arrested’ for real. Demetrius’ arrest was a misdemeanor arrest, which did not involve being taken to jail but rather to spend the night in a detox center.

The arresting officer in fact said to his friends,

“Demetrius is potentially a danger to himself being this intoxicated and we’re just making sure he gets home safely, tomorrow.” These friends could have been the difference between his life and death had they been allowed to witness what happened after they were run-off. They will always live with that knowledge.

Next the District Attorney, Mr. Dougherty, worked tirelessly to downplay the act of murder by Sheriff Pelle’s men, by playing the charge of reckless manslaughter as a single fourth degree felony with a two to six year sentence, and then he went on to manipulate the public by not releasing the body camera footage until three years after the crime, thus withholding from the public a means with which to judge the DA’s actions and methodology.

We now know how he was treated by the arresting officer that had assured his friends he was safe, by that officer’s very own body camera, the one in which it can clearly be seen that both deputies had their hands on the door as they shoved it closed. The officer filming this horrific scene did not intervene, nor attempt to deescalate the violence of the Sheriff’s deputies, nor did he inquire about Demetrius’s well-being after he witnessed what later turned out to be the final act of Demetrius’s murder. He was no more concerned with Demetrius’ well being than the Man in the Moon, and only said what he said as a ‘Performa’ statement to allow him to do as he pleased.  

In his statement after the trial, DA Dougherty stated that Sheriff Pella acted immediately to fire the deputies involved; only it was six months later. The DA also decided to keep the city officers from being charged in any way; from either negligence in their duties, to accessories to the murder that was actually taking place in front of them.

The whole tone of the arrest was one of playground bullies playing to each other; Pella’s bullies displaying still more of a well-documented culture of hooliganism behind the Sheriff’s badge, as they administered ‘street justice’ on the young man for his ‘passive resistance,’ his back-talk. When officer Lunn had decided he’d had enough of Demetrius’s talk, although no violence was ever displayed by Demetrius, he picked Demetrius up by his feet (he was already falling into the compartment sideways) and violently shoved him into the van and slammed the inner door on him. Then they said, “hasta la vista,” and “another satisfied customer,” and slammed the outer doors of the van.

DA Dougherty, Sheriff Pella, as well as Mayor Weaver and Councilman Bob Yates, knew all of this and had seen the videos within a week of the crime; if they didn’t, then they were negligent, especially given Mayor Weaver’s ongoing campaign to make heroes out of each and every officer on the payroll, and Bob Yates’ never-ending votes to increase the funding of the Police, while neither hinted at the tragedy they both knew had occurred under Pella and at the hands of their own city officers; some of Boulder’s finest, according to Weaver.

Last night, on the third anniversary of his murder and after the verdict of murder was in, and after the video of his arrest had finally been given a public airing, the city council never mentioned Demetrius’ name; not one of them. This is a far contrast to George Floyd’s murder at the hands of the police in Minneapolis when Bob Yates made a speech and the rest of the council gave eight minutes of silent prayer to the heavens.

There wasn’t even any public feedback on his murder during the two-minute public comment time which speaks to the effectiveness of allowing only two-minute comments in which the council never adds anything of substance except their own indignation at being called out for not following the will of the People, with harsh words.

The local papers didn’t say anything either, after multiple lawsuits against the Sheriff and his crew, the most recent costing the county 400k; and that’s before the civil suit that will surely follow this conviction. The local papers, the Weakly, the Camera, and even Ms. Castle’s Beat all decided not to explore the on-going problems in the CJS; whether city or county.

This is how it has been for years with the fourth estate in that town and their simple denial of the humanity of this young man and the horrific things, continuous cover-ups, being done in the name of the status quo in their ‘business as usual’ sensibility as to what is fit to print, what makes it into the public forum, the public zeitgeist, makes them just as culpable to the crime as the officer that said, “it’s for his own safety that we’re taking him to detox” as he witnessed his murder.

 They have all seen the videos, they all know of office Lolotai, officer Smyly, of the 400k settlement, another crime that was denied by the Sheriff’s Panel before they forked over 400k, of this murder and these videos and of all the other crimes committed by Pella, and the city under Tom Carr; they all know the score.

The question is …. who gives a fuck when the papers can’t even face the truth about their own collusion in these ongoing bureaucratic, institutional crimes … when the People are given just two minutes to raise their concerns and no one on council says a word … when Weaver calls for a vote on six more cops, when the alternatives haven’t been explored … when the downtown merchants association funds Rangers and Ambassadors to keep the unwanted and despised and dispossessed (by this council) are ignored and arrested … who gives a fuck that the city under Yates and Weaver and Young and Joseph and the rest of the COVID Council denies all of our common humanity and catches a lawsuit from the ACLU  for being ‘inhumane’ !

Who gives a fuck that they, the powers that be, including the fourth estate and the judiciary, I’m speaking to you Mr. Daly and former Judge Stavley as just two of the malefactors operating within the system, have turned America’s most beautiful city into one of its ugliest. I’m speaking to all of you that are supposed to be the ‘keepers of the flame’ because with your silence you perpetuate the status quo.  

The CJS is the grain of sand Boulder can be viewed through and its inbreeding institutionalized political corruption, tribalism, and malevolence revealed. Three years ago a young student died at the hands of those sworn to uphold the law and protect its citizens and not a word is said by those on high … Mr. Brocket or Ms. Friend, or Mr. Swetlik … would you like to add something?

For all the talk of Police reform and changing the Homeless situation, Weaver, Yates, Wallace, Young, Joseph, and Nigel and Brocket at times, have made it impossible. Ms. Friend and Mr. Swetlik brought a knife to a gunfight and are now leaving the field of radical reform to others. Not one of you could rally your arguments and the People to oppose what the ACLU has called ‘inhumane’ practices against the most vulnerable which has brought shame on the whole city.

Ms. Friend may mature in the future, but given her concerns over U locks versus training for practices and patterns of de-escalation, I don’t hold much hope for her powers of insight. If she is all the city has between legitimate authority and tribal rule we are lost.

Debo died three years ago at the hands of the city

Mr. Yates put on his bee antenna and acted silly.

No one on council said a word about Debo … they wanted to be silly.           

Robert Mayles

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Where are ‘The City Lights’ of Boulder, Colorado?

The City of San Francisco has its City Lights, a bookstore founded by the late poet Lawrence Farlinghetti. It started as a paperback bookstore that democratized literature by offering high quality literature in the form of paperbacks, then turned into a self-publishing house as well. He envisioned his store as a ‘literary meeting place’ where writers and readers could congregate to share ideas about literature, politics, and the angst of the arts.

The question is, where are Boulder’s own City Lights because once in every generation the services of a farsighted, independent, visionary bookstore or cafe owner is needed to democratize the political environment, to find its cultural common ground, a conflict-free commons where free thought is encouraged. I ask this because it appears from this writer’s perspective that Boulder is well overdue to democratize its culture, its criminalized politics, and its violations of freedom of speech.

Boulder is currently suffering an identity crisis, politically, culturally, and therefore existentially; and in that vein this writer offers a simple solution … reignite the Bohemian Revolution that once guided the local political scene and gave us the legacy of a Bohemian Republic, however hollowed out it may currently be by the CJS, of a community that is environmentally, politically, and spiritually aware of its own fingerprints on the cultural life of the nation.

Today the city is blighted with class warfare. This was brought to us by the likes of City Attorney Tom Carr, currently having served for ten years, current Mayor Sam Weaver over six years, Councilman Bob Yates over six years, former City Manager Jane Brautigam ten years, and the rest of the conservative wing of the COVID Council as far back as DA Garnett and former Mayor Jones. This list also includes Sheriff Pella, a natural born sadist in charge of the county jail, and former Chief Testa. Currently, Chief Harold has encouraged other sheriffs in the state to work against SB 62 while continuing, and then intensifying, the illegal homeless camp sweeps; thus criminalizing and victimizing those least able to defend themselves in court from the operatives and oligarchs of the political and commercial classes statewide; a contagion of stupidity and cruelty.

In light of these developments, the actuality of a two-tiered legal system, and the commodification of the whole of the community commons and labor for ruthless exploitation, Robert Augustus Gerard offers a critically-timed review of the current politically correct culture of the City Council, and the tribal legal system of criminal conspiracy as defined and codified by the city’s criminal justice system in his book Coulder North, a Writer’s Guide to Boulder, Colorado; which speaks to a case of slander out of the Boulder North Rec center (case number 2014C 000021).

In addition to his critique of the city’s cancel culture, he has also self-published, in the Farlinghetti tradition, a road book, Café 66, his homage to Steinbeck and Kerouac; as well as a genre-defying book about an imaginary dragon, The Epic Adventures of Prince Ralphie; which he claims is a ‘two party’ book and must be read aloud between friends, lovers, brothers and sisters, or children and parents, to gain its fullest understanding.

This appeal to the café and bookstore society of the metaphorical City on the Hill is to their sense of freedom of speech; to backing the artist’s right to speak freely. The protagonist of the story, which is based on actual events with known political personalities, was taken to civil court over the stories he wrote about the Boulder North Rec Center, and was exiled from the city as a consequence of the crime of corrupting the youth; ala Socrates, Petrarch, and Nabokov.

The censoring of his voice, based on scurrilous rumormongering by the Rec Center staff under Ms. Cole’s leadership, which led to a classic vigilante mobbing, is a tried and true method of ruining a reputation; but the ‘facts’ of the case don’t exist without them. The judge took the opportunity to abuse his so-called ‘discretion’ in a case in which the city attorney’s office conspired with him to create an unseen party to the case, which had a predetermined verdict; in other words, they ran a kangaroo court together.

The result was a permanent restraining order against the writer, an immediate listing on the police ‘watch list,’ and a ban for life on ever going to any Rec Center in town; and of course, the writing of this book, which refutes it all as a mobbing, a shameless vindictive slandering, and the disgracing of a local civil court judge by the name of John F. Stavley.

This is where the resilient character of book lovers and freethinkers comes in, this is where the cafés in Paris and Vienna became hot spots for the intelligentsia and agent provocateurs, and great debates filled the local newsprint. This is where the backing of a local writer comes up against the political status quo, and this is where the community makes its choices about its culture and future on the same battlefield where all the other great writers have fought and died or lived to carry forth their ideals of justice for all, in the cafés and bookstores; whether that be in Paris or Vienna before World War One, or the cafés and bookstores of Boulder before the Great War on Ignorance that Prince Ralphie is bringing to the city.

This is that moment that all café owners and bookstore proprietors dread and love to fill their memories with; what will Boulder’s Bookish Bohemians do? Don’t do anything until you’ve read the book(s); then decide whether or not this writer has within his grasp some of the answers to the seemingly insurmountable issues of the day; existential meaning, the role of the artist in trying times, the healing power of depth psychology and mythic adventure just to name a few. The Realm of the Imagination is the bibliophile’s playground; let’s see if book-loving Boulderites can play with big ideas!

Robert Augustus Gerard

Prince of the Realm of the Imagination


I plan to return for the book fair and will be making the rounds of the cafés and bookstores; taking the rooms’ temperatures. I hope this fall is a good season for writers and café owners and book merchants, and book smugglers and bibliophiles and flaneurs of all stripes. Until then, my best wishes for all our adventures, whatever adventure we’re all on!

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

How did America’s Most Beautiful City Become One of Its Ugliest?

Class Warfare

The fault lines of America’s current cultural despair run into cities and burgs across the country, and are most evident in the conduct of the local Criminal Justice Systems, the ones operated by the local District and City Attorney’s offices.

This single institution has a symbiotic relationship with the culture of the community it serves, and in the case of Boulder, Colorado the relationship has become toxic for the citizens; and therefore the city itself has a simulacrum of culture, imposed from the outside by the influence of the rentier class, and their illegitimate political operatives.

The Boulder CJS is entrenched and armed with state-sanctioned violence, and therefore deadly for those who oppose its privileges and cultural meddling with virtue signaling platitudes meant to quell the restless by criminalizing the tribally outlawed.

The treatment of the homeless is just one example of the CJS involved in cultural community issues wherein social constructs of individual worthiness, rather than real criminal considerations, are in play; although the power of the CJS is mostly exercised under a law and order rubric, it is used in the city of Boulder as a sorting and vetting machine of its less fortunate citizens as to social acceptance by the ‘norms’ of the tribe.

Another area of consideration is the Judicial Branch itself; take for instance the case of Judge John F. Stavley. Judge Stavley ruled against a writer in a case involving a mobbing, the writer’s only crime, thoughtcrimes. The writer had the temerity to write about what he saw at the Boulder North Rec Center and was taken to civil court over it. You can read the transcript in the following case and decide for yourself: case number 2014C 000021.

In that case you’ll find John Stavley did not follow the law but rather his tribal instincts by abusing judicial discretion, an assumed privilege of judges everywhere that does not actually exist under the Rule of Law. This effort by the city was intended to limit what the writer said then, and is now saying under threat of state-sanctioned violence.

The net effect of the judge’s actions for this writer has been to uncover a network of city employees in high positions, Bob Yates, Mayor Weaver, Sheriff Pella, and Tom Carr, who have aided and abetted the cover-up of the judge’s and other city employees’ criminal activities, including but not limited to, conspiring with Tom Carr and employees’ of the Boulder North Rec Center to deprive the aforementioned defendant of his civil rights. That makes Judge Stavley’s and Tom Carr’s actions in this case a Federal Crime; but more to the point it means the Boulder CJS is operating a two-tiered legal justice institution for pre-selected winners and losers.

Individual sovereignty is the only known antidote to tribalism; that’s why it’s foundational to the Bill of Rights. Without that tenet of the law in play in the courts, the city is adrift, at the mercy of demagogues and bureaucratic tyrants; and because we are currently without moral leadership at the highest echelons of the city government, it means powerful amoral political interests run the institutions of the city, not the People. The People, the defendant included, deserve the Rule of Law at a minimum from these public servants, yet they are continually conspiring to cover up each other’s crimes.

So here we are, with the whole of Boulder’s political class underachieving and delegitimizing itself for years, and not a voice from the fourth estate strong enough to rally the People to demand truly representative governance, to rally them to their own enlightened self-interests.

The political class schemes and schmoozes while the rentier class profits from the use of the public commons, including its spectacular natural setting, imports its labor needs from nearby towns, does its best to disenfranchise most of its inhabitants, and preens itself as America’s most beautiful city. But under the commodifiable slickness of the Pearl Street Merchants Association’s sloganeering is its recent decision to fund more Police, which hides a mountain of crimes against the community commons.

Everything the old Republic of Boulder stood for, its famed liberalism of free thought for which it was once world-renowned, has been turned on its head in a creepy, silent, oligarchic coup, and men like Stavley, Carr, Yates, and Weaver are now the operatives of this tribal political agenda of class warfare. They decide who is heard, staff for endless hours, or the public in two-minute intervals.

This is precisely the gerrymandering of civil participation, and the class warfare crisis we see coast-to-coast that is rending the country into polarized camps that are unable, and in the case of the Covid Council, unwilling to find the middle ground. This is what class warfare looks like up close, locally; and this division over the vision of the future of the town, whether it be for commercial exploitation or for the edification, relaxation, and expansion of its citizens’ interests in the culture at large, is what is at stake.

The Role of the Artist

In the political processes of a town’s culture, in its milieu, the artist is the agent provocateur on a cosmological stage; one without the power of state-sanctioned violence at his fingertips, but rather a stage presence empowered by its moral consistency. The artist is left with the imagination of his audience, and on that blank slate, through his sonnets and prose, he creates a morally nuanced vision of reality, one that is informed by tyrants but never ruled by them, less he becomes an inauthentic voice of the uncultured political class.

In that vein I have rendered the stage of Boulder as the City on the Hill, the ideal, metaphorical city familiar to all great writers and artists since time immemorial. In that city I have identified the crime, the crimes of the CJS, as having created a two-tiered legal system, and within this frame I have identified the case of the mobbing of a carpenter philosopher who came to town not to convert or subvert, but to create, and in that effort was pilloried; the Socratic philosopher marked for life as a corrupter of the youth.

Boulder is at a cultural impasse and the ground under its assumptions about itself is shifting; its political class has lost its legitimacy by turning the police force into Pearl Street mall cops bought and paid for by the Pearl Street Merchants, and its county Sheriff’s jail into a torture dungeon run by a sadist, Sheriff Pella. What they eventually decide to do in regards to this actor, on that cosmological stage of truth, justice, and free speech, will reflect on them as a governing class, not on the People.

In my writings I put to the public a story with local actors and settings which is a microcosm of the cultural chasms that are splitting the nation apart; we will either be united by the latitude we give art to heal these wounds, or we will be divided by cancel culture. The horrific feminine exists, as does the toxic male, and the conversation we have regarding these stereotypes, versus archetypes, and the conundrum of a writer’s ‘thoughtcrimes’ will define Boulder’s cultural path into the future.

Sociopathic Voting

The recent vote on six new positions within the Police department, allegedly for a ‘highly’ trained team to enforce the illegal camping ban, assuming the other officers are not ‘highly’ trained and just winging it, and the Pearl Street Merchants Associations donation to further that effort, along with ‘ambassadors’ and ‘rangers,’ is the very definition of sociopathic if not despotic behavior, given that twenty plus vacancies still exist on the force, and changing personnel to sleeping ordinance enforcement will not change that fact until the twenty are hired.

The resistance to change, ala Yates when he passed the hardball to Harold wherein she spilled a gobbledygook of bureaucratese, ‘because this is how all the other police forces do it,’ that was swallowed hook, line, and sinker by the Covid Five shows the mediocrity of intellectual integrity within the sociopathic discussion on what to do with the homeless.

Chief Harold keeps saying ‘every life is sacred’ but keeps acting as if some lives are more valuable, more sacred, than others. Is she up to the task of fighting the sociopaths on the council? So far they’re winning, and she’s obliging. But then she’s been a weak sister from the beginning by enforcing the status quo of class warfare, the sweeps, from her first day. We have a failure of confidence in police leadership nationwide. Is Boulder so different as to be above what other departments in the area are currently doing criminally? Is Boulder an exception to bad leadership? She’s had a year, has anything changed, or has it gotten worse; and is that her fault? Or is compassionate leadership, ethical leadership, lacking at council?

Robert Augustus Gerard

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Prince Ralphie’s Rawlsian Revolutionary Platform: A Vision for the Future of Boulder

Based on the foundation of using the Rawlsian Social Contract, Prince Ralphie proposes the following planks of his political platform going forward. This by no means points to all his ideas, just those that come to mind off the cuff; therefore this platform is amenable to change, but not in its underlying social contract.

  1. Education Reform; we support a return to the trivium and the quadrivum with a minimum of three hours a day devoted to play and art.
  2. Health Care Reform; we support Medicare for all as a basic human right, in this way we can avoid turning away pandemic patients who owe money to hospitals.
  3. Foreign Policy; in light of the ‘anti-Semitic’ policy recently adopted by the City Council we too have a foreign stance on Jewish affairs; we support the Boycott, Divest and Sanction Movement concerning the state of Israel and its occupation of Palestine.
  4. On the Homeless issue we support Senate Bill 62 and The Right to Rest Act and advocate a more creative and benevolent local approach to the homeless issue; we do not support the continued criminalization of poverty by the current City Council.
  5. We support a $25 an hour minimum wage for all workers in the city limits, and a $15 an hour wage for all restaurant staff and other work that is tip dependant, as well as gig workers’ rights to organize and unionize within the city.
  6. We oppose the overreliance on the current regressive sales tax and we support bedrooms for all. In other words, we want the property owners of the city to quit being parasites on the People and start paying for what they are stealing, both in labor wages and time commuting, as if they were colonials in India in the time of the Viceroy.
  7. We oppose the city commons and the community at large being used for the economic purposes of financial interests and the merchant class as long as the business community refuses to carry out its share of the social contract in finding workable solutions for the precariat class.
  8. We support the right of Free Speech for all citizens. We believe Assange and Snowden are political prisoners of the security state, the one Eisenhower warned about, and we oppose the same intimidation tactics locally by way of watch lists, kangaroo courts, and judicial overreach.  
  9. We believe that all the political victims of the current system of the CJS, going back past Garnett, should be financially compensated, in a peace and reconciliation process, including but not limited to those who’ve given their lives in the frozen outdoors under the leadership of current and former city officials; including Pella, Carr, Stavley, Garnett, former Mayor Jones, and current Mayor Weaver in their continued silence on the illegal activities of Tom Carr and the CJS.
  10. Last but not least, we support the Sovereignty of the Individual under the Rule of Law. We adamantly oppose the current two-tier system of Justice as endorsed and acted upon by former justice John Stavley, City Attorney Tom Carr, and Mayor Weaver, as well as the rest of the conservative arm of the Covid Council; including but not limited to Yates and Wallach.

This is just the beginning of the Prince’s work in the City on the Hill. He will work tirelessly to include any other planks that ennoble and embolden the People of the Bohemian Republic of Boulder; long live the Republic of Boulder!

His Serene Personage, Prince Ralphie Augustus I

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

The Murder of Demetrius Shankling in the Most Beautiful City in America

The Demetrius Shankling murder trial is the most important public review of the CJS since the Ramsey case revealed its gross incompetence.

What do we know?

  1. We now know that the two deputies attending the transport, post arrest, put Demetrius in the van in the ‘prone’ position, with his hands cuffed behind his back, a position that stretches the muscles of the chest and causes the lungs to labor harder to breathe; the exact same position as George Floyd was put in when he died of oxygen deprivation.
  2. We now know that his head was turned against the partition wall of the van and that he was squeezed into that position by being lifted by the deputies and shoved into the van on his stomach so that his neck was pinned sideways as if a knee were on it; that’s called ‘enhanced positional asphyxiation’ in both cases.
  3. We now know that he was unable to move because his leg was pinned by the door as if he was being held down; this complication is past the ‘enhanced positional restraints’ of his having been crammed into the smaller compartment with his neck twisted and his hands cuffed, this is negligent homicide, murder two.

This is accessory to murder if you consider the responsibility of the other two city policemen involved in the arrest, which Dougherty failed to file on. This is also the color of systematic, institutionalized protection of the criminal actions of the CJS, even when involved in an obvious negligent homicide. This is murder two and accessory to murder; yet we got murder four out of DA Dougherty and a pass for the city police, a two to six year felony charge for Pella’s men with the possible suspension of the sentence. Dougherty, like his counterpart DA in Aurora in the police murder of Elijah McClain, fears the wrath of the local Policemen’s Association more than the voters.

Mr. Pella at the time said, “It was a tragedy for all.” Implying, I guess, that he and the four officers themselves underwent a trauma after they’d gotten caught committing murder. Next, those on the defense team will try to obscure the facts of the murder by claiming it was the drugs and alcohol in Demetrius’ system that contributed to his death and thereby they’ll go after his character too. It was his birthday; he was celebrating. Needless to say they will try the victim as they do in all these police murder cases. How does Yates’ grandstand virtue signaling speech about George Floyd a year ago, look now to the rest of the Council? Insincere, calculated, tone-deaf? He knew then what we all know now.

Mr. Swetlik remarked recently that platitudes alone don’t cover mass killings, but what if the killings took place over years? Say maybe a frozen corpse here and a frozen corpse there, which by my estimate has added up over Mr. Yates’ and Mr. Weaver’s tenure to maybe … ten. Is that mass murder or a killing spree? Is that a tragedy for everyone too, the whole community or just a private tragedy for those families that fell victim to Boulder City Council policing policy, which uses the Police Department to enforce illegal social control statutes.

What if Chief Harold used the same words to praise Lolotai as she did to praise Officer Eric Tally? Look it up for yourself. Is this hypocrisy or just more mere platitudes, and more to the point, can these politicians or the Chief and Sheriff tell the difference? What if these leaders can’t find the right words to heal the community after the years-long tenure of their misanthropic rule because they can’t discern murder in the first and second degree? The first looks like a psychotic break, the second looks like bureaucratic fiat.

Remember the librarian who called in to say her son had played with the young man whose body was the second frozen fatality of this past winter? Do you remember that he was a local boy? Do you remember that Yates as well as Carr are carpetbaggers who’ve advanced their pathological political careers by way of class warfare onto a compliant council with the backing of the institutions that are supposed to serve the public interests, specifically the CJS, which has turned into deadly public policing policy by constantly trying to enforce the camping ordinances, in spite of their continued court defeats and continued lack of services for the most destitute among us?

Unfortunately, Mr. Swetlik, the change you seek will take a complete philosophical and economic shift away from the ugly, divisive class politics of Weaver, Yates, Young, Wallach, and Nigel, and sometimes Brocket and Joseph. An (r)evolution of thought concerning the way the ‘community commons’ is understood is desperately needed, and these malefactors can’t provide it; they are intellectually and philosophically challenged to say the least. For a start you might study the work of Guy Standing, an economics professor out of the University of London, then move on to Christopher Lasch and his book The Revolt of the Elites.

Are these ‘leaders’ to be held accountable? No, Mr. Swetlik, not during your term or Ms. Friend’s as the council presses on with business as usual as they decide what to do with the parcel of land at 55th and Arapahoe. The way Weaver carried on about that property and its potential commercial value I thought he was going to spontaneously combust, so that he does have vision, unfortunately it’s just a business vision. He has no vision of a beneficent community, or how to curb the economic disintegration of the community he and his ilk are destroying; but he sure can see the financial benefits of that corner. Mr. Weaver was on a city council retreat at the time of the young man’s frozen death, talking about snorkeling in Tahiti.

These are our ‘leaders’ – and for all the talk of police reform and the addition of services for the homeless, nothing has happened. It’s all still in study groups while some of you are on your way out. This is how the sausage is made, with platitudes where real human emotion and constructive thought should prevail; it’s called virtue signaling, as in defining the lack thereof.

Finally, to mention Jane Brautigam in the same sentence with ‘hope’ is the kind of virtue signaling propaganda that Weaver and Yates and Wallach specialize in, as exemplified by her last staff report on the homeless in which she labeled most of the homeless as ‘sex addicts and drug users’ – all of which was disputed by your own citizen review board that called her out as an outright liar; which begs the question, how many did she kill with those false reports over those ten years?

Mr. Swetlik and Ms. Friend have accomplished nothing for all the colloquies, and pleasantries, and thank yous to staff, and the endless self-congratulations; and that is a true tragedy for everyone. I suggest you try to make a ‘radical’ moral stand on the homeless issue before it’s too late.

Weaver is a businessman, not a moral leader; two very different skill sets. Yates is a political divider, a morally craven political operative, and maybe even sociopathic; his hard-line policies against the homeless have ‘kettled’ them into the parks where they are sure to invoke calls for law and order, much to his delight. Every time I turn around he’s paying fealty to the police, instead of the People, either praising them or assuring more funding, virtue signaling the law and order constituency.

Wallach is a mush-mouth lawyer unable to orient himself to the service of the most forgotten, and thereby betrayed, of his constituency. Young is of no help with her inability to move off the prescribed agenda in the face of new facts; like an early, deadly winter, or the uptick in confrontations on Pearl Street with the homeless, which indicate the desperate poor are now getting more desperate in light of the current policies that are meant to intimidate and criminalize their poverty. One might say they are fighting back against a global economic circumstance they don’t fully understand, the globalization of labor.

Joseph is conservative in her voting pattern and therefore keeps shooting down her own best ideas for police reform by going along with the other conservatives. Remember her enthusiasm for reform, then her continued vote on camping bans, in spite of having no new services added to help those in need with their problems? Nigel confuses groundhog sanctity with human sanctity and therefore continually votes for sweeps, while protecting her very cute and precious groundhogs, which is probably a false equivalency. Mr. Brockett started off good with the homeless welfare agenda, and may still yet prove to be worth something to those who don’t vote.

Then there’s Ms. Friend and Mr. Swetlik; what’s your next move?

I’ll tell you this, what you’re looking at in your own lack of accountability concerning the CJS is institutionalized malevolence, evil made manifest, but no need to skirt the issue at this point; murder is murder just the same in the most beautiful city in America, whether by the tens or twos, or alone in the back of a van. So let’s have an elevated conversation instead of a pretentious student council meeting where we say things like colloquy and jerk each other around with platitudes. Or at least let’s pretend we’re intellectually sophisticated people and have a more realistic conversation, starting with the crimes against the community committed by Carr and Stavley, who in my case conspired in the open and on the public record to subvert the Rule of Law. Easy enough to prove, it just takes political will.

These men and their ilk have created a cancer on the body politic, aiding and abetting a cynical political pathology of institutional tribalism which has led to senseless deaths among the homeless, maiming in the county jail, and possible suicides, something we may never be able to calculate, so that just maybe a close study of my case might work to break through the platitudes. Either way it’s well past the time to own up to your own complicity, Ms. Friend and Mr. Swetlik; it’s time to wake up to the potential of the responsibilities you have.

Finally, after the murder Sheriff Pella brought us the spit bag lawsuit; another in a series of crimes jointly authored by city police and county deputies, which were cleared by the Review Panel. To me the video clearly showed a gang of thugs had been set upon the woman; later Pella and his panel cleared them! Pella appears to be a sadist; it seems he didn’t learn a thing from the murder.

One of the deputies was taken to the Colorado Supreme Court for breaking an inmate’s leg and was cleared, and then he went on to murder Demetrius. In my estimation this is an indictment of the systemic court bias in favor of the current structure of the CJS. The murder trial and the Review Panel clearance is an indictment of Sheriff Pella. He now wants to fight the ACLU about the use of the restraint chair. That’s why the entire CJS is on trial, and not the deputies’ conduct, because on every level of the CJS city employees are encouraged to be thugs; it’s a matter of record. These men, Yates, Weaver, Wallach, Pella, Carr, and Stavley, and women, can’t see or at worst, choose not to see, the institutional malevolence because they’re all involved.

Robert Augustus Gerard

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

The City of Boulder’s Circular Firing Squad

Was Ms. Nagel Mobbed for Alleged Anti-Semitic Comments?

Dr. Zimbardo’s insight into bullying inside groups, any group, is that certain seemingly normal group dynamics can, if not understood properly, lead to the adoption of herd morality and group malevolence. He states that individual pathological behavior is the outcome of social vectors of malevolence wherein herd morality is encouraged and reinforced by those in authority. He postulates that group mobbing is pathological malevolence, and when understood as such can be addressed as a public health issue. (The Lucifer Effect by Dr. Philip Zimbardo)

It’s also a crime under Colorado state statute.

The Socialized Public Health Problem of Evil;

Seven Known Vectors of Malevolence

  • Someone mindlessly took Nagel’s words out of context without consulting her first as to what she meant, and repeated them, most probably with malevolent intent.
  • The postcard fed into this shame and blame narrative which became an anonymous slur campaign, which is a textbook dispersion of individual responsibility for malevolence.
  • Those on council who organized a rebuttal did it with impunity, as did everyone else that signed-on, because after all it was a broad statement against a known evil, and not intended to hurt her politically or personally; or so it was alleged.
  • The council denounced anti-Semitic remarks and false equivalencies, group norms that make denunciation nothing more than picking low hanging, over-ripe fruit for everybody to throw at the target of the rumors and innuendo.
  • Friend calls in the ADL, the Rose Institute, and the rest of the cavalry of the PC Left; at this point Ms. Friend, is seemingly out-of-control with self-inflicted indignation, otherwise known as PC madness.
  • Everyone on Council signs on to the false comparison agenda, only the false comparison is between what Nagel actually said and meant, and what the mob decided she said and meant, without talking to her.
  • Nobody apologizes to Mirabai after her eloquent explanation as Wallach piles on, Sam remains morally rudderless, and Bob remains silent in defending her right to speak freely.

The Banal Face of Malevolence in a Self-righteous Mobbing

Are any of those involved in the smear campaign, in spreading the gossip and innuendo to the point of having to make a public declaration of their PC bone fides, evil people individually, or are they ordinary people who can’t think straight about their own responsibility in a mobbing because they have no underlying ethical, rather than political, framework for civil discourse?

Or is it that they lack political perspective with a personal philosophy of human dignity at its center, a viewpoint of humanity that can allow them to see and measure the form of some of the most odious facets of human beings, like gossip and innuendo, through a group dynamic psychological lens, so that they don’t once again go off down a rabbit hole, this time of anti anti-Semitic declarations, on a mindless tangent over something that wasn’t even true to begin with?

Understanding the crime of a mobbing is about understanding how herd morality develops inside tribal group dynamics, and as Professor Zimbardo states in the book, these vectors of malevolence are a public heath issue, as I’ve been trying to point out for over a year now. It happened to me, it’s in the book you didn’t read, and here you’ve gone and done it to yourselves.

Am I happy because this incident proves my point about the nature of group malevolence? No, I’m sad, sad for both Ms. Nagel and Ms. Friend. The first one will more than likely never forget this moment of public humiliation, and the other will have to come to terms with her own undeniable adoption of an illiberal liberal herd morality; PC culture in its worst form.

The Parties Fomenting the Mobbing

Ms. Friend has now become the Bob Yates on the other end of the political spectrum which is to say that both are more political propagandists for divisive agendas, than leaders with healing visions of personal integrity and community.

In calling in other organizations, specifically the ADL, to formulate a Council proclamation against the alleged ‘false equivalencies’ spoken by a Jewish woman without apparently consulting her first is one of the most craven actions I’ve ever seen one politician do to another. Ms. Friend may have done more damage than she knows; because what she did served to add a dark ‘legitimacy’ to the gossip and innuendo with her declaration of ‘city council purity’ when she should have listened to Mirabai and defended her right to say and feel as she wished.

This kind of virtue signaling by illiberal liberals makes them as guilty of the same sort of reputation destroying political gamesmanship as are Bob and Sam and Mark. In my estimation, Ms. Friend would show unusual political courage if she apologized to Mirabai for damage she doesn’t know she’s done, yet.


Mark Wallach appears to be a co-conspirator in bringing the condemnation of the ‘alleged’ defamation through the rubric of false comparisons to fruition, as the annoying neighbor. One of the great benefits of a public pillorying is that those who do the flogging feel morally superior to the rest of us, and Mark’s false equivalencies are brought to light as evidenced by his statement claiming that what happened in the holocaust was the ‘worst genocide in human history’; which presumes we don’t know our history, and, well, it all but proves he doesn’t know his history.

Mark has a homunculus worldview with all the nerve endings in him and his Jewish heritage, which makes him more or less indifferent to others’ sufferings, as is witnessed in the last council meeting where he made the remark that his personal ‘comfort’ should not be impinged upon when it comes to what happens to the homeless in the town, where he ran for office to represent all the People; and that’s called chutzpah!


Aaron Brocket didn’t add anything of value to the conversation when he implied that Mirabai’s blaming of the media for spinning what they thought she’d said into an out-of-control frenzy, and that it was partially to blame for the situation, the mobbing. He saw this as an attempt to scapegoat the media, which he seemingly felt needed his protection, over Mirabai’s reputation or free speech rights.

Frankly, I don’t think she intended to take down NBC at 30 Rock for being lame, but rather I think she was talking about local media; the gossipy, un-vetted parts of The Weakly’s and The Daily Camera’s so-called journalism. Just for the record, the Weakly and the Camera aren’t what I’d call great bastions of the Fourth Estate either, or the city of Boulder wouldn’t be in such a rudderless political state as it continues to be divided on political fault lines over PC culture and a general lack of accountability for the Councilmen Weaver, and Yates, and Wallach and the rest.


Sam Weaver and Bob Yates just watched from the sidelines as the illiberal liberal shot herself in the foot over and over. Basically neither one of them could bring any sensible leadership and moderation to the discussion; because again they have no philosophy of moral leadership guiding the civil discourse at Council meetings.

The problem with both of these politicians is they are unprincipled in their politics; they rule by division. Therefore, because they don’t exercise and exemplify principled decision making by putting human dignity as designated by individual sovereignty first and foremost in their deliberations, the conversations always deteriorate into something politically pathological, with tragic outcomes for all, including fellow council members, but most especially the citizens.

Good leadership would never have let this type of mobbing happen, along with it’s concomitant divisiveness because they would’ve read my book and thereby would know a thing or two about how the tribalism of a mobbing works to destroy individual sovereignty in both the public and legal arena.

Coulder North is after all an entire book on the local politics of a very specific criminal mobbing in their town, and that case with its unofficial denial of the crime, combined with city council’s lack of their own avenues of civil discourse or recourse, has gotten us to this pitiful state of affairs; they’ve self-mobbed themselves!

Boulder’s political class, with its reactionaries on one side focused on division and chaos, and its illiberal liberals on the other side virtue signaling over false equivalencies, and a city attorney’s office that regularly disregards both individual sovereignty and the Rule of Law, all under Sam and Bob’s years-long morally vacuous leadership has allowed this lowly state of affairs to develop and continue with tragic outcomes for all, again, especially the town’s citizen.

But then, just like the illiberal liberals, the conservatives already know everything there is to know about the institutional criminality of the CJS, the insular tribalism of staff, and the malevolent banality of their town’s institutions of governance because they’re getting elected over and over; I say they see the community as a political chess game and themselves as political ‘players’ instead of representatives of all the People. Therefore, when a mobbing occurs, they don’t know how to use it as a teaching moment but rather just watch from the sidelines because they lack political courage, insight into the public heath problem of mobbing and, or the practical knowledge to act to unify, and are therefore unfit to lead on yet another level of having a vision of how to heal the community.


Junie Joseph has already experienced Ms. Friend’s friendship, so she wisely kept quiet, as did Mr. Swetlik, smartly, and Mary Young to her credit as she too watched the illiberal liberal virtue signaling her People as they all tacitly signed on to the low-hanging fruit of the declaration; because as I said before, everybody hates Nazis, and in my case predators, and it doesn’t matter whether that libel is fact-based or transmitted by innuendo and gossip, because both are equally valid as evidenced in Boulder courtroom as my encounter with John Stavley can attest.


Ms. Nagel was superior to every dirty, ugly, unfounded accusation hurled at her; good for her. She held her head high, stood up for herself, and acquitted herself with grace in her words. This may seem like her political nadir but in time it will be one of her fondest memories; the day she stood up for free speech, speechless groundhogs, and, yes, even the human animals of the world that are being desensitized to the suffering of all animals, including human animals, and in doing so displayed a depth of feeling and compassion toward the world few humans enjoy. I’d defend her stand on the animal kingdom over feigned political indignation any day.


Some Random thoughts on Self-Censorship


So once again the Council got off-track and went down the anti-Semitic rabbit hole, a spurious tangent based on a false rumor, and spent their time condemning what Mirabai may or may not have said or meant, which she didn’t have time to fully explain when it happened, because as she stated, she was cut short; and after all, she was just trying to engage another councilmember as the retreat coach had asked her to do. So that half of what she said, and none of what she meant, got tweeted out into the gossip-sphere, the rumor mill of social media, and she became an instant public enemy.

That’s what you call a mobbing, a modern, social media fueled, vigilante mobbing.

She went on to say she was sorry for any hurt feelings, but that she was being misunderstood, and that she is from a Jewish background, and she, like everyone, hates what happened to her people. She also quoted a holocaust survivor and Nobel Laureate, ‘the way we treat animals can be directly linked to the way we treat humans,’ and in this sentiment one need look no further than the indifference displayed by Yates and Weaver and Wallach to the homeless man’s recent death, behind a church of all places, to see that there is some merit in what she’s quoting; even though she too supported the camping ban. After all of that, Ms. Friend somehow managed to accept her apology while at the same time virtue signaling her hatred of hate speech, which we all hate, and that makes it just more low-hanging fruit.

The truth of the matter in these PC times that we live in is that if anyone says anything remotely anti-Semitic (the Palestinians are a Semitic people too, so figure that one out for yourselves) they become instant targets of the morally self-righteous and everyone climbs aboard, liberals and conservatives become lovers of self-righteousness, over what in this case, as in most PC incidents, turns out to be just another case of gossip and innuendo run wild as Mirabai’s reputation is smashed and her right to speak her mind freely, is censored once again by a politicizing leadership that gives way to PC cultural intolerance as it turns its back on yet another homeless man’s death. This ultimately leads to self-censorship and stifles disparate voices at the table as those that would like to speak for the voiceless don’t want into the kind of fratricide, the circular firing squad Mr. Weaver and Mr. Yates have made of the council because they lack both practical leadership skills and a unifying vision of community.




Where was all the outrage when the homeless man died behind the church? Or when Demetrius died at the hands of the sheriff’s deputies, in the back of a van, utterly alone in his death throes? Or when the spit bag tasering happened at the jail, and the review board signed off on it, and the $800K settlement was not questioned? Or when Lolotai was doing his worst? Or when Chief Harold wrote a glowing letter of recommendation for him? Where is your outrage when a Lieutenant and Deputy Chief perjured themselves in their official reports?

Where was your outrage then, Mr. Wallach, Ms. Friend? Where is the outrage now that Pella has decided to defy the NAACP about the use of restraint chairs even after you too have reviewed the video? You did look at the Video, didn’t you? Not doing your jobs, obviously, because you were too busy consulting the ADL and the Rose institute about a gossipy rumor.

If Wallach and Friend really cared about the People they serve they wouldn’t have used this obvious misunderstanding to publicly shame a fellow council member for something they’d clearly misunderstood, but would instead be heading a probe into Tom Carr’s and Sam Weaver’s multiple cover-ups in the CJS lawsuit cases that just keep coming.

As I’ve said, I’ll take no prisoners; from Weaver to Wallach to Friend and Brocket and Yates, mobbing is tribalism. It’s a crime, one for which Ms. Cole and Judge Stavley have yet to be held accountable. The courtroom is an arena of conflicting narrative; the transcript in my case shows no over-arching narrative of a crime or misdemeanor, it literally has no narrative. Read it for yourself, because all it contains is the inaudible gossip and innuendo of self-righteous PC people, as in this case, and of course the pesky problem of free speech, as in a few lines of my stories were taken out of context and used against me as ‘evidence’ of possible potential future crimes; thought crimes.

The only antidote to tribalism is individual sovereignty and the Rule of Law, both of which are routinely ignored by Tom Carr, which has turned the whole town tribal with vying camps of virtue signaling demagogues, (Yates on Floyd George’s back) on both sides of the aisle that don’t have any clue that the line of good and evil runs right down the middle of all of us, them too.

That’s why I call all of this feigned distress about what was basically rumor and innuendo conveniently applied to PC cultural bullshit; criminal bullshit. This is the exact crime Ms. Cole and Judge John Stavley and Tom Carr did to me; it’s a crime under the Rule of Law. Where is your outrage over the very real and provable criminal acts these individuals committed?

I’ll state it clearly for all of you; Ms. Cole instigated a mobbing, a crime under Colorado statute, based solely on rumor and innuendo. I’ll also state here flatly, that Judge Stavley was in contact with the city attorney’s office because there is no over-arching narrative in the transcript and therefore one can only conclude sentencing was handed down because an alternate narrative was presented in another forum, in an ex parte meeting. In addition, there was no opening charge cited, nor a finding of facts, before sentencing was applied with devastating results.

And finally, where is the outrage for the young woman and her family who were manipulated by Tom Carr, Ms. Cole, and Judge Stavley for their own political, virtue signaling ends?


Was Mirabai mobbed? You tell me, you have the evidence to convict.




Robert Augustus Gerard


Author of Coulder North, a book about Boulder’s Political Class




Some Random Thoughts on Anti-Semitism


Not many people on council know their history very well or they would’ve challenged Mark when he went overboard in his condemnation of Mirabai’s right to free speech.

Mr. Wallach was pleased with the generalized statement the Council made against the false equivalency of the holocaust and the gassing of the groundhogs, but then he went on his own tangent to say that the Jewish holocaust was the ‘worst genocide in human history,’ conveniently forgetting Stalin’s 30 million and Mao’s 100 million. Not to mention our brother and sister Palestinians in the Gaza Strip who are currently victims of collective punishment, itself a war crime, or Israel’s defiance of UN resolutions concerning confiscated territories which indicates to me that Zionists, a subculture to be sure, feel that they are above the law, international law anyway; due, I imagine, to the same claim of the aforementioned ‘worst genocide in human history.’

Mister Wallach is ignorant of history among other things. What he did at the end of the meeting is called grandstanding; he learned it from Yates when Bob stood on George Floyd’s back without acknowledging Demetrius Shankling. Frankly, I’m not sure that Jewish suffering is any more sacred than Russian or Chinese suffering, or what the Palestinians are suffering now at the hands of the Jewish state in real time.

Is that a false equivalence? Am I anti-Semitic for saying that; again reminding you that Palestinians too are a Semitic people? Who’s running the PC show this week? Ms. Friend, Bob, Mark?

I read in the paper the ICC has taken up the Palestinian agenda, to which the Prime Minister of Israel responded by calling the ICC anti-Semitic, just after walking out of his third corruption trial. But then again the pro-Israel political apologists around the world allowed the slaughter of the Palestinians in the Sabra and Shatila refugee camps in Lebanon that were allegedly under the protection of Ariel Sharon pass by without speaking any outrage, so who’s to say what a false equivalency or justice looks like from a Jewish or Palestinian perspective? Not me and certainly not a City Council in Colorado that flaunts the Rule of Law and individual sovereignty as freely as it does under Tom Carr and Mayor Weaver while the homeless freeze and the Police perjure themselves, multiple times, without being held accountable.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Institutional Denial Bolder Boulder Style

Brought to you by Bob, Sam, Mark, and the rest of the COVID Council

City Council Meeting 1-5-2021

 Denial, denial, denial … are these the men; Officer Rappold, Commander Trujillo, and Deputy Chief Weinheimer that Sam has been chatting-up in the last few meetings, or just another example of a few more ‘bad apples’? Are any of these city employees going to be held accountable, like Pella was for the four hundred thousand dollar lawsuit, and the death of Demetrius? Or is this just business as usual; precedents set by Yates and Weaver, and Pella and Jones last season?

This latest incident of police brutality with a hefty financial penalty was a perfect opportunity to challenge some of the Mayor Weaver’s Pollyanna positions about law enforcement. Yet not one person on Council made use of the opening the tragedy presented for an exploration of law enforcement abuses, including filing false reports.

What kind of signal was that to the culture of the police force; to the People?

How many of these tragedies will it take before Council Members do their jobs?

When will the individual people on Council take personal responsibility for their office, as if their personal freedom from injury and death where at stake?

This incident goes back to the hypocrisy of Mr. Yates standing on George Floyd’s back without acknowledging Demetrius Shankling. This goes to Sam’s hypocrisy of acknowledging Officer Good Guy’s jeep saving story, while at the same time shorting the consent agenda review that was an undeniable acknowledgment of law enforcement officers abusing their offices.

The cover-ups are a pattern, the undeniable conspiracy of constant cover-ups is systemic; and yet the Council sees no evil. No amount of letters, good reference books, or strong intellectual arguments can do much if it’s a ‘see no evil’ public conversation.

None of the dissembling will be unwound, no responsibility will be enforced; even after both officers involved, Luna and Rappold, had received specific training in the areas that they ignored, and none of the higher-ups, including on the jailhouse review panel, will be fired or demoted or even acknowledged in their deceptions. Which is why good people continue to get maimed and killed by the hypocritical decisions the Council keeps making. Is this how representative politics is supposed to work? Is this what you signed up for; covering up class warfare and institutionalized crimes; like falsifying reports?

When I came to Boulder I expected reality tinged with good faith and good will, and this is what I found, an on-going tragedy of cruelty and sadism within the city government that has infected the body politic. It’s beyond disgusting. I have no words for what I saw Sam do by parliamentary process tonight, except denial – the denial of justice. If this is the best staff and Council can do, and if you can’t stand up to the bureaucratic bullying by Yates and Weaver, then I recommend you resign while you still have a reputation, much less a conscience.

“A body of men holding themselves accountable to nobody ought not to be trusted by anybody.”                                 

Thomas Paine


Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Act II A Renaissance of a Bohemian Vision of Boulder Colorado

A Vision of the Future brought to you by Prince Ralphie,

A Philosopher Prince of Ennobling and Emboldening Ideas

The Future is Before Us

 The time for a Renaissance of Boulder’s Bohemian past has arrived; a more beneficent future depends on it. We, the common people, could go on like this for the remainder of Weaver’s tenure as some council members continue to complain about complainers, which is exactly what Messrs. Yates and Wallach want, because mud-wallowing is what they do instead of the People’s business. But Prince Ralphie has decided that with the conclusion of the first year of his tenure on just such a whiney note a new page will have to be turned in the War on Ignorance that will be taking place soon in the shadowy recesses of Boulder’s political class.

As the Philosopher Prince said to me recently, “I am not troubled – I will test myself against the wearying ways of officialdom, and though I be but one small dragon, and have been driven out of the City on the Hill by the kind of men who would burn books if they had a chance, I will fight the good fight for a better future for all because I’m indeed a dragon, a bibliophilic dragon full of ideas to be sure, and I have found no one yet better equipped than I to fight these fights!”

Prince Ralphie, as you already know, has voluntarily exiled himself these past seven years because he refused to respect the legitimacy of the local authorities; fleeing the corrupt political troglodytes infesting the institutions of the CJS with its marsupial judge, rattus rodentia city attorney and a gaggle of political hacks trying to hack representative democracy, none of which has done anything positive for the People in the last year, or decade for that matter.

In light of the debasing corruption of the Rule of Law by Carr, Stavley, Weaver, Wallach, and Yates, Prince Ralphie has set himself the task of creating a new paradigm of social engagement; to wit, a new social contract. Prince Ralphie’s hope for a better future lies in bringing into the realm of possibilities the ideals of a civic humanitarianism born out of the Italian Renaissance, and reflected in Boulder’s own renaissance at the dawning of the Age of Aquarius, by redefining the importance of a careful study of the humanities for the benefit of the citizens of Boulder in forming a more perfect union between the People and their Government.

“As of the New Year, We the People, and various sundry dragons of the Bohemian Republic of Boulder are done with this odious class warfare wherein a two-tiered justice system has spawned a political class of otherworldly creatures that have emerged as worms of dissemblance, disinformation and disingenuousness in the heart of the city … heartworms … and are continuing to thrive by the political chicanery of men like Messrs. Yates, Weaver, Carr, and Wallach.”

The Prince of all things ennobling and emboldening went on like this at some length, in a Rooseveltian ‘forgotten man’ populist speechifying fashion for most of it, as he slipped into Kennedyesque moments full of Sorensenian soliloquies. The threads of these monologues were from his theatrical training mostly, speeches and swashbuckling type stuff full of grandiose gestures that he’d learned in playing great men who strutted and fretted in the theatre of his imagination.

But the gist of what he said to me that night was that he didn’t like being bullied by book burners, and that he was going to do his level best to see that those men who had tried to take his life from him, by burning his stories at the stake of public opprobrium, suffered the pangs of everlasting moral regret for their outrageous conduct toward artists of all stripes who have been dehumanized for breathing life into their thoughts of rebellion and anarchy, and agapé love, and the power of spiritual redemption.

“I am not troubled; I am invigorated – and I will test my writing against the very real evil of these petty tyrants! It will be a bonfire of their vanities!” were the gist of his words as best I can recall.

Prince Ralphie’s Call to Revolution

‘When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.’

This, you will all recognize, is the beginning of the Declaration of Independence; and for purposes of expediency I will substitute the COVID Council for the King:

  • The Council has refused the assent of the Law in repeatedly re-presenting the same camping and car sleeping ban year after year without addressing the root issues of homelessness.
  • The Council has set the Public Heath department against the Police department in a pandemic, as well as ignoring the pleas of the Governor of the state during the public health crisis.
  • The Council has continually ignored pleas to change the culture of the Police Department, as well as the rest of the CJS, starting with Tom Carr.
  • The Council has refused to take on the responsibility for the homeless, who are a part of the constituency of the city for which they ran for office.
  • This could go on for the length of Weaver’s tenure but you get the point; they’re unfit for office because they can’t meet the basic needs of the People for accountability in governance.

The main point of this indictment is that the current and past leadership, by bent of continuing to ignore the pleas of the People for ‘justice,’ and consistently acting in bad faith on multiple issues, has lost the confidence of the people and thus has undermined its own legitimacy.

Prince Ralphie’s Rawlsian Justice

This continuing, depressing gridlock on the social issues related to real justice and democratic representation at Council calls for a new social contract, one that was brought to life by the late American political philosopher John Rawls, who published his thinking on the subject in a book called A Theory of Justice, Harvard Press 1971.

What is called for now is a Rawlsian Revolution; according to Prince Ralphie.

Plato’s Republic, cited earlier in Prince Ralphie’s campaign as a foundational text, starts with the question of ‘justice.’ Rawls explains his idea of how to ensure legal and social justice in a simple thought experiment, who do you give the knife to when you want to divide a cake fairly? The answer is, the one who gets the last piece of course. It’s a little more complicated than that, but the idea of self-interested morality is at its heart.

Remember, his theory is based on a thought experiment, and it goes something like this: one has to put one’s self behind what Rawls calls a ‘veil of ignorance’ into a time before they were born, and from that perspective choose a society in which they would wish to be born into; simple, right?

What if before you were born, before you knew how tall or rich you would be, or your IQ, or your country or religion of birth, or what kind and class of family you might be born into, all of which are arbitrary traits and fates that you have no hand in deciding, you could choose the society you would be born into?

Obviously you would choose the most egalitarian society possible, because it would be in your own self-interest if you were born into a circumstance of low opportunity. From that perspective, that thought experiment, you can derive both a humanitarian morality and a set of practical ethics as to how to make decisions concerning the governance of the People; because political leaders shape society perhaps as much, or more, than its artists.

This theory of benevolent governance was known back in the day; and so that’s why I call this second Bohemian Revolution a renaissance. They had this all figured out years ago in terms like ‘the man,’ ‘the fuzz,’ the ‘machine’ … and then that clarity was clouded by the ‘establishment’ … with consumerism and trickled-on economics in which everyone’s self-interest was alleged to be in exploiting each other for high status toys and trophy houses, no matter the cultural consequences.

It’s a smash-and-grab social contract called neoliberal capitalism, which we have spread around the world, and suffer under locally with low paying gig jobs and consumer debt peonage. In Yates’ case with regard to Boulder it looks to be a ‘smash the poor and homeless with a police truncheon,’ and ‘grab the good properties with the scenic views’ kind of Darwinism; because ‘it makes good business sense’ to gut punch the hapless.

Therefore this Revolution for the People has to be started somewhere, by someone, even if that someone is a bibliophilic dragon; and since Ralphie has found one of the darkest places on the wasteland of the imaginal American Dream to be Boulder Colorado, it’s his unqualified duty as a classic exiled writer, like Dante or Petrarca, holding to individual sovereignty and the Rule of Law, to put pen to paper and give impetus to his fellow citizens to dream the impossible dream.

The Power of Great Ideas

The American Constitution sets forth an ideal of a just society; or rather, a set of ethical ideals, natural laws that a whole society has been built around. So that believing in an ideal of justice as the foundational basis of a community is not out of the norm for most citizens. Most people believe in the Rule of Law; and most, although they might not be able to articulate its historical genesis, believe in the sovereignty of the individual.

It seems that neither of these tenets, which are at the heart of the current system of justice as written into the Constitution, was observed by John Stavley in his office as a civil judge for Boulder County, nor does it appear that are they currently being observed by Tom Carr or the Council under Mr. Weaver; and that state of affairs is what has created this crisis of accountability and legitimacy.

The sovereignty of the individual cannot be upheld in a two-tiered legal system, which is what Messrs. Yates and Weaver and Wallach have promulgated and are currently defending by blaming the complainants, me included. This happens not only at ‘comment time’ during the meetings but because of the Council’s continuing denial of dealing with the criminal act of mobbing that I experienced at the hands of Mr. Stavley and Mr. Carr, the violation of the Rule of Law and individual sovereignty of the individual has become demonstrably codified and normalized.

It would appear that the Council is in denial of the outcomes of its current policy of ‘see no evil, hear no evil’ and of course ‘speak no evil of the CJS,’ and this lack of rational outcomes to vexing social and criminal issues, some involving criminal misconduct by its own staff and employees, has a direct connection to accountability in representational government, and thus the current dysfunctional situation leaves the citizen no choice but to revolt, as stated in the declaration cited earlier.

Where this State of Affairs Leads

Apart from the problem of the lawlessness, as cited by numerous courts, of the CJS under Carr and Pella, in Carr’s case the frozen corpse casualties of his and Yates’ class warfare via camping bans are on the streets for all to witness, and in Pella’s case, after the murder of Demetrius and the spit-bag lawsuit in which no one, including him, has been demoted or fired, there is also the problem of entropy and tribalism within the institutions themselves; remember that Officer Luna was defended by the taxpayers of the county after breaking an inmate’s leg in Joe Pella’s jail, only to go on to murder Mr. Shankling.

These problems are exacerbated by the continued defense of these failures of leadership by Messrs. Weaver and Wallach and Yates in their supercilious ad hominem attacks on the public for breaches of etiquette; which leaves no room for the discussion of the complex questions of real accountability and reconciliation.

In governing institutions that tend toward authoritarianism, without real representative accountability, these are the outcomes you get – death and division; and for the artist there is the larger tragedy of the destruction of the vitality of the culture.

In the coming political campaign Prince Ralphie will offer up the idea that the role of art, and the freedom of artists to express themselves, is as much at stake as critical thought is in the current political environment. The loss of freedom for a writer to express his thoughts is just a precursor of what is at stake for the community, the culture itself.

In Closing

Being a writer is the same as being the permanent ‘other’ described in all heroic myths; and thus its unique perspective is both a blessing and a curse. We who exist outside the tribal ‘norms’ of society are called weirdoes and cranks, and even predators, so that our thoughts and ideas can be delegitimized without ever being heard as voices of reason and integrity.

What Prince Ralphie is campaigning for here is not just a personal matter for me, but also for those that come after me and have to go against bureaucratic bullies like John Stavley, and Joe Pella, and Tom Carr, and Bob Yates; who, if you will remember, wanted public buildings used for jail space over housing for the homeless. These men, for me as an artist, comprise a cultural threat to critical thought and free expression for all.

Put yourselves in my position, in exile, fighting for your good name from a thousand miles away, seven years after the so-called ‘facts.’ You too would naturally become the outsider par excellence and fight, seemingly alone if need be, against bureaucratic bullies who have used state-sanctioned violence against you for your simple stories, your thoughts; for ‘thought’ crimes.

This is a David and Goliath situation and within that frame there are countless other frames, interpersonal and societal, psychological and philosophical, practical and irrelevant; and thus you, in my shoes, would have to artistically apply your aesthetics of justice, and the role of the artist in society, as a role of speaking truth to power in such a way as not to offend those who would want at some point to help Prince Ralphie’s cause because they too see the danger to the Republic that these men pose.

In that vein it would seem this crime of a virtue signaling judge, leading a vigilante mobbing to a public lynching intended as a psychological castration, may just be the perfect injustice for a fearless writer in these politically correct times when our basic communal values are under an inquisition type interrogation by splintering factions that would divide us one from another for political gain.

Some say Prince Ralphie’s campaign against the malevolence and ignorance of the institutionalized criminal status quo is hopeless, some contend it is without merit, but as long as the fate of the Bohemian Republic hangs in the balance, you too, as a fearless writer, would want to do your best to become the Thomas Paine of the coming Rawlsian Revolution; otherwise known as Prince Ralphie’s Revolution for the heart and soul of the Bohemian Republic. Because that is what fearless writers do, they’re the conscience of the People staring down hypocrisy in the ruling class who lack such hindrances in their lusting for more and more power, property, and social position in their delusions of grandeur, which are actually just petty tyrannies of social control operating under the sobriquet of ‘law and order.’

Robert Augustus Gerard

Author of

Café 66, Coulder North, The Epic Adventures of Prince Ralphie

A body of men holding themselves accountable to nobody ought not to be trusted by anybody.

Thomas Paine

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

The American Tragedy of a PC Culture at Council

The Continuing Saga of Crime and Punishment

in America’s Most Beautiful City

Brought to you by Bob, Sam, Mark, and the rest of the COVID Council

The Problems with Tom Carr

Well folks here we are again, Tom’s been traumatized by harsh words and the rest of the council has come to his aid. Never mind that Tom oversaw an investigation into the tasing of a pregnant woman by a police officer in a traffic stop when he was the city attorney of Seattle in which she was tased four times, and yet he found no fault with the officer’s conduct. Brutality is a one-way street with Tom. The case was later settled, after he was voted out of office for such insensitivity and malfeasance, and I imagine more than her feelings were hurt; she’s Seattle’s Sandra Bland.

Tom also found nothing wrong with what Officer Lolotai was doing with the citizens of Boulder because he never charged him with anything, or tried to fire him, even when there was video evidence of his misconduct. It actually took a citizen’s video of officer Lolotai’s personal web site before he got dismissed, and yet Tom’s friends, almost all of those on the COVID council, rushed once again to his side to defend his malfeasance both in the petitioning scandal, and his corruption of the law concerning the homeless camping bans.

Two very informed citizens passionately advocated for a change in the petitioning schema, begging the council for a two tiered system as a back up after the fiasco of the previous year, yet they were pushed aside because Tom said it would change the staff needs from two to thirteen and that would cost the city a ‘lot’ more money. A back of the envelope calculation is thirteen people, times eight hours, times ten days, at roughly thirty dollars an hour equals approximately thirty one thousand dollars, $31,200 out of a three hundred and fifty million dollar budget, 350,000,000 or .000089 percent of the budget. In addition, he said that the last time it was done that way the petitions were counted by volunteers, which Swetlik immediately signed on for, good for him and bad on Tom.

Mark Wallach then upped the ante to twenty persons on his own, in defense of Tom’s position on insisting signature verification couldn’t be done. This is why I call him ‘mush mouth,’ because everything that comes out of his mouth is a mash-up of fact and fiction; thirteen turned into twenty somewhere between his ears and his mouth. Is it then inappropriate to call him ‘mush mouth,’ or would you prefer I call him a liar because that is what is called lying. As to Tom’ dissembling you only have to look at minute 3:30 wherein he blames everyone including the voter’s for their fecklessness and all of this exchange is right there on the video for any other councilmember to look at, yet here we are once again worrying about ‘staff’s’ feelings.

If your City Attorney is acting in a political modality then its only semantics as to whether or not he is ‘staff,’ and calling him staff, and then pretending that he is not the source of a lot of the city’s problems is political, dare I say, Bobvillian misdirection. This is what I expect out of Bobvillian Bob, who once again avoided the calls of outrage by citing some of the caller’s, but not most, use of rough language and ‘ad homonym’ attacks. At approximately minute 3:50 he uses his time to launch into a denunciation of those that would approach him on any issue if they did it in less than a tone he wanted to hear. It is actually an amazing display of arrogance and indifference and again it is there for anyone to examine in detail.

The whole conversation then got sidetracked into an ad homonym attack on the callers as Tom defended his choices of a sunnier tomorrow after the People got ‘used to’ the new system, as he then went on to paint a rosy scenario for the rest of … believe it or not … the year after next year when he’d learned from the mistakes of twenty twenty-one; which is pie in the sky as everyone knows, as he kicked the houses for people petitioning can down the road at least another two years from the original fiasco.

He illuminated no back up plan in case his scheme didn’t work, just like last year, and to back up not having a backup plan, he said at approximately minute 3:35 it would cost ‘much more’ to change the format by way of the new contract parameters of a two-tiered scheme, but tellingly he did not know how much that would actually cost, exactly, beyond a vague ‘a lot’ having not quizzed the contractor before coming to the meeting.

This is either incompetence, or just business as usual under Tom’s leadership.

I’ve now given you three different ways you could have come after his proposal; no back up plan if something goes wrong, nothing beyond the cost of thirteen extra staff, Mark’s twenty, which neither had figures for, and could be ameliorated by volunteers, and finally no cost estimate from the contractor for fixing the problems as they have arisen. As I said this is either bald-faced incompetence, or malfeasance, or both.

The On-going Alleged Problem of Addressing ‘Staff’

All of that aside, the council again took up valuable time asking to be addressed properly, yet no one was using rough language in what Sam conveniently characterized as ad homonym attacks. This gave the rest of the Gang of Five one more swing at those pesky citizens that had taken the time to call in and identify Tom as the fox in the hen house, to which the council replied ‘fox, what fox,’ missing the subject of the sentiment entirely.

No one was cussing, no one was outrageous, they said what they said in anger but that doesn’t change the point that Tom is the source, along with Bob and Mark and Sam, of the continuing loss of good faith between council and those they represent. The habit of defending those that are not doing their jobs on ‘staff’ because they are called ‘staff’ is semantics and making citizens that are not as articulate as Bob, or Sam, but not Mark, because as I’ve pointed out he can’t keep the facts straight five minutes after he’s heard them, is putting lipstick on a pig, or pigs as you prefer.

I’ve written and I’ve been polite, and yet here we are once again with the city council chasing paper tigers and why is that? Well, just for the record I call Bob, Bobvillian Bob, for this very reason of his twisting the alleged ‘outrageous ad homonym’ attacks into a city council meeting show stopper in defense of ol’ Tom, which is a distraction from the real issue, the People are getting pissed off … is that too rough for any of you?

And finally I call Sam the Supercilious Sausage King because he has yet to conduct a meeting in which he stays on topic long enough to resolve an ‘outrageous’ complaint without blaming the People for their anger, and, or, then dismissing their complaints as if he’d never heard them; petitioning, police misconduct, housing, take your pick.

Are any of these essays I’ve created in the course of politically lampooning Boulder’s politicians reasons for dismissing what I’m saying about their superciliousness, shall I gently approach each of you, being careful in choosing my words so as not to hurt your feelings when I express my outrage? In spite of what Tom Carr, and former Justice John F. Stavley has done to me. Shall I bow and scrape too.

After witnessing, once again the Bobvillian Sideshow of misdirection and feigned outrage I am weary. I personally, in my business, have to deal with all stripes of zebras and I don’t get the privilege of asking them to be polite, I take ‘em as they come, as do most people in the real world. Yet it seems that you can only approach the politically explosive issue of Tom Carr’s incompetence, bordering on criminality, on bended knee. The meetings are turning into a game of semantics and political correctness and that’s why I call him the Supercilious Sausage King of what looks like a high school Student Council meeting; its not really a meeting in the public interest, it’s a feel good meeting for those that are ‘doing their best,’ and no discordant chord will be tolerated at court.

Finally, almost everyone on council threatened to not listen to the People if they did not comport themselves properly … and what can you say to that … a PC culture taken to the extreme and for what, to excuse all the malfeasance and feigned competence. And that my friends, is how good hearted people at council become hacks; they can’t see the forest for the trees. The People are outraged because they’re hurting, and you can’t see their anger as pleas for justice because it rubs you the wrong way when they identify a fox in the hen house; actually there are several.

I predict Tom will be out of a job before another year is over; by recall petition, and I’ll start it myself if need be. I also think Mr. Yates and Mr. Weaver and Mr. Wallach are politically finished, and not just for the COVID vote but for everything they represent that is lowering the bar of civil discourse; the misdirection, the outright cruelty toward the disenfranchised, and last but not least, for lacking a unifying vision of the town and its future in a chaotic world that seems to be without a guiding philosophy.

These men, all four of them, lack a basic philosophical narrative of the future for the whole community to aspire to; like a Sorensen or a Shakespeare would have given us, something to embolden and ennoble everyone swept up in the current crisis of political leadership at the national level that is only a reflection of what is going on in Boulder.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

The American Tragedy of Politically Demagoging the Homeless

The Continuing Saga of

Crime and Punishment in America’s Most Beautiful City

Brought to you by Bob, Sam, Mark, and the rest of the COVID Council

The Status Quo

This week’s play is about creating politicized vectors of malevolence that give rise to the acting out of personal psychopathologies within the institutions of governance by city employees; to wit, the City Council’s approach to the Homeless Public Health crisis and some political, as well as possible psychopathological reasons, that Bob, Sam, and Mark take the approach they do to the issue as one ripe for political demagoguery and public division.

Hopefully this essay will also help explain how, by the council’s lack of a humane policy toward the homeless crisis, wherein the homeless are treated as second-class citizens by Mr. Weaver and the CJS, the status quo is failing the most vulnerable in the community right in front of everybody, and why Bob and Sam and Mark and their true believers don’t see this as a failure of public health policy but rather use it as a political football.

The current city council policy, as defined by staff under former manager Jane Brautigam and the City Attorney Tom Carr, outlined an approach to the crisis using illegal statutes and periodic police sweeps of the camps as an articulated ‘dirty hands’ policy which I will contend in this essay is a political rather than a practical solution, intended to appeal by fearmongering to the darker nature of the collective unconscious of the townsfolk, the inherent sense of tribalism in all people.

I will further try to persuade you that these political operatives, Bob, Sam, and Mark, along with Tom and Jane in bureaucratic disguise, have nurtured and enabled chaos and division on the humanitarian nature of this issue by tapping into the rich blood of tribalism, using fraud and deceit as a modality of political policy expediency instead of doing their jobs with intellectual honesty, much less practical commonsense.

These individuals have politicized innate human compassion; it’s stupefying.

My Case is as Follows

For this essay on politically incited institutional malevolence I cite two books:

  • Evil Geniuses by Kurt Andersen, in which he details the slow motion coup of the past fifty years by the financial sector of the economy; how it happened and what its consequences have been for the past two generations on the middle class and working poor.
  • The Lucifer Effect by Dr. Philip Zimbardo, which details how social vectors of malevolence allow personal psychopathologies to emerge in social and institutional settings.

Kurt Andersen is a Pulitzer Prize winner, and Dr. Zimbardo is the psychologist behind the infamous ‘Stanford Prison Experiment’ whose parallels to the now infamous Boulder County Jail ‘spit bag’ incident are uncanny; more about Sheriff Pella and his penchant for condoning what can only be described as sadistic practices within the Boulder County Jail staff, later. I suspect he may be a closet sadist himself.

If there is not sufficient evidence in this essay of pathological institutional malevolence under the current council’s leadership within the institutions of governance in Boulder to convince you that it does exist, I can also cite Dr. Janice Harper’s work on ‘mobbing’ as a criminal act in my own case, and submit the transcript of the kangaroo court I went through, presided over by John Stavley, which was nothing less than a malicious prosecution, alongside the Boulder County Jail House Review Panel’s disingenuous report of the spit-bag incident prior to the lawsuit, as further evidence of the patterns of cover up of malfeasance and criminal behavior within the CJS.

Act One – a Trial in Absentia of Bolder Boulder’s COVID Council

Exhibit A

In his recently released book Evil Geniuses, author Kurt Andersen goes to great lengths to show how the realities of neo-liberal economics, the ‘trickle-down’ economics of the Reagan Era, right through to the present moment of Goldman Sachs’ vice president Mnuchin’s pillage of the Treasury by the institutional operatives of the top ten percent, has turned the American Dream of economic independence on its head with the help of a cabal of rightwing economists led by Milton Friedman out of the Chicago School of Economics, and conservative rightwing judicial review of labor organizations as strategized in the infamous ‘Powell Memorandum’ and made manifest in the Citizens United case, and the current packing of the bench by the Federalist Society.

In his book he makes the case that these banking and mercantile elites, in league with conservative think tanks and political and judicial operatives, some on the Supreme Court, have in essence overtaken democratic representation with a corporate agenda that has led to the current state of affairs as far as the American Dream of political, as well as, economic empowerment are concerned.

He details how the top ten percent’s agenda was made manifest in an unresponsive Congress, and debt peonage for the middle working class. Not to mention the criminalization of poverty for the working poor, and how this state of affairs has vomited up characters on the national stage like the Clintons and Mr. Trump, and on the local political stage, like good ol’ Bob Yates and Tom Carr and Jane Brautigam, not to mention Sam Weaver, and last but not least mush-mouth Wallach; each of them seemingly without a moral compass or philosophical foundation in regard to those that have stumbled and fallen by the wayside of a predatory capitalist system that is notorious the world over for exploitation of all labor.

Exhibit B

In Dr. Zimbardo’s book The Lucifer Effect, he outlines seven critical factors in creating social and institutional vectors of malevolence:

  • Mindlessly taking the first step by making the first slander

The first slander of the homeless was by Jane’s staff in labeling most of them as meth addicts and sex offenders, ‘the homeless covet our treasury, want to do drugs all day and rape our women by night’ was the implied subtext of the fraudulent report for which there is no apparent evidence or accountability.

  • Creating tribal solidarity

Dehumanizing the victims of the slander is the first step in creating tribal solidarity; seeing them as ‘second-class’ citizens is the antithesis of the individual sovereignty which undergirds our Rule of Law, and thus by stigmatizing the ‘other,’ the homeless, (in this case as sex addicts and meth offenders) is without consequence because it is seen as protecting the interests of the tribe.

  • De-individuation of self-responsibility for immoral behavior by the ‘tribal’ council

He, she, or they (the economic victims, the homeless in this instance) are labeled and libeled as ‘bad actors’ in police jargon; or as ‘drug addicts and sex fiends’ as mischaracterized by the city staff’s report on the homeless, who then communicated this libel among the authority figures they speak to, the main institutional actors being the city council, police, judges, and prosecutors.

This was further facilitated by the city council accepting the staff’s despicable report; the report that headlined the ‘homeless’ not as survivors of on-going economic and personal tragedies at the same time, but as meth addicts and sex offenders; kudos Jane and her crack staff of bureaucrats for vilifying that which she and they have no understanding of; namely humanity itself.

  • Diffusion of personal responsibility

In this case, by the city staff and the city council doing what they do to the homeless under the mind-numbing slogan of saying ‘it’s best for the community’ to label the homeless as ‘bad actors’ in absentia, rather than as the refugees of economic upheavals beyond their ken that they truly are, and so by bureaucratic fiat the city staff has trumped the real facts and the Rule of Law, i.e. the illegal camping ban that keeps getting overturned, in spite of Tom’s and Sam’s and Bob’s and Mark’s best efforts at criminalizing poor people’s poverty.

This is also called the ‘dirty hands’ problem in political science arenas. But in the richest country in the world, in one of the richest communities in that country, with adequate resources to at least let the homeless into its emergency shelters when it gets below fifty degrees, this doesn’t hold much water; this argument is basically a political fraud.

  • Blind obedience to tradition and authority

The normalization of humiliation and cruelty by the Boulder Police Department in maintaining its constant sweeps of the camps, then leaving people to freeze to death if it’s one degree above twenty in temperature speaks to something other than ‘law and order’; perhaps the institutionalization of malevolence by the CJS.

The past policy of ten degrees has led to two frozen people on Jane’s and Tom’s and Sam’s and Bob’s watch in the last three years that I know of, but that won’t be the end of the corpses on their watch as long as there is no opposition to this policy of institutionalized malevolence through the continued criminalization of poverty demonstrated by Tom Carr and the leadership of the council, first and foremost.

  • Uncritical conformity to group norms of vilification and dismissal

In this case the former City Council’s approach to the issue is summarized as follows: we have discouraged ‘undesirable’ people from accessing our community chest by the threat of freezing them to death, to wit the latest victim, or through extrajudicial institutional malevolence in illegally ticketing them for camping, a non-crime, or in finding other ways of entraining them into the CJS by way of drugs or ‘weapons’ violations. Or simply by saying ‘things got messy when we tried to help,’ and that apparently being enough of an excuse for not continuing to find better ways to act humanely.

  • Passive tolerance of the dehumanizing process through inaction

This is a crime of omission, of indifference, and by turning a blind eye to the cruelty as dispensed by Mark and Sam and Bob in their continuing voting patterns, and their reliance on the ‘dirty hands’ and ‘magnet’ arguments, one becomes a ‘hack’ politician. Mark, like Bob in his grandstanding on George Floyd’s back, has basked in the reflected glory of RBG but apparently learned little in her class; she, unlike he, worked to give the voiceless a place at the table.

A Public Healthcare Model of Malevolence in Action

This last element of Dr. Zimbardo’s schema of the creation of social and institutional vectors of malevolence implicates the entire current city council in the face of not calling out the reprehensibly fraudulent report, the illegal statutes, and the continuing harassment by the police in their ongoing sweeps of the camps. In this way, most obviously by not responding to the citizen review board’s outing of Jane’s report when in session, everyone on the council is now complicit in the crime of covering up Tom and Jane’s malevolently criminal ineptitude. I say criminal because I believe their feigned incompetence and stonewalling is intentional. They’re lawyers, they know how to parse their words and dissemble.

Confidentially, you’re all beginning to look like bumps on a log when Sam asks, each and every time the public comment phase is over, ‘Are there any comments from council?’ and not one of you has had the moral courage to stop this outrage, or the innumerable other fabrications foisted on the city by these political operatives in bureaucratic disguise. The inevitable end of this kind of political conformity without critique is that innocent people are being killed in your names, because as elected representatives even your inaction has life and death consequences, especially on the most vulnerable. Your lack of outrage exemplifies the conformist nature of a public health model of institutionalized malevolence.

With these cited books I do away with credentialing my arguments concerning institutionalized malevolence in this critique, so that I bring a constellation of academic and seemingly obvious conclusions together to counter the current dogma surrounding this issue, and reveal the personal psychopathology behind it. This is warranted in regards to the current city council’s policy on the pernicious public health crises of the so-called homeless ‘problem’ which through this lens appears more and more to be a problem of a multi-decade, calculated white collar crime as stated by Andersen, and bureaucratic malfeasance and incompetence within the institutions of government; both in the staff’s report and in the current culture of the city council in its ‘see no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil’ approach to the issue of institutional malevolence as expressed by the Gang of Five when they collectively said, ‘things got ugly when we tried to play nice with the homeless.’ Thereby, one assumes, they washed their hands of the ‘problem’ without really offering a viable solution for those on the street.

Of course they got ugly; all that the disenfranchised know of the ‘system’ in Boulder has been through their interactions with officers like Lolotai and Smyly, and city attorney Tom Carr. If the city attorney were an elected official he’d be gone, but instead it’s a political office without any voter check on its power, with Sam and Bob and Mark supporting its malfeasance with every vote. Carr’s not an independent arbiter of facts. He, like Bob and Jane, represent the worst types of lawyers, self-serving.

Not to mention Sam’s dismissal of the most vulnerable during the open council meeting’s public comment time, while covering for criminal cops Smyly and Lolotai by bringing out the old trope of heroic loyalty to public service. It’s not the good cops that the public is criticizing Sam, it’s your continued use of them in deploying Tom’s illegal ordinances, and in asking those few good ones left on the force to execute potentially illegal sweeps of the camps when the homeless public health crisis is not a criminal issue but rather a societal one, as in class warfare, as you well know. You pass the legislation and then go home. The homeless go out into the living hell that you and Bob and Mark have created for them, and then the cops dutifully roust them around town while criminalizing their poverty, thereby creating a second-class citizenry. As Vicky exemplified in her report when she said, “the homeless find their way around to the resource centers,” referring to them as a herd of subhuman creatures I suppose; and yet somehow you think this is an adequate and humane approach to the issue.

You’re being supercilious, Sam. You and Bob and Mark act with arrogance in discounting the ‘other,’ either by citing their inarticulate articulation, or subpar income, as if you think Boulder is y’alls personal property and that you can do as you please by criminalizing poor people’s poverty, and then running them off; individual sovereignty and the Rule of Law be damned. Perspective Sam, get yourself some; then pass it around because you weren’t hired to just do justice in the issues you care about, but also the ones that have proven the most intractable. Do your jobs, all of you; and quit acting like you’re being put upon. You asked for the job, do it with grace and maybe a little humility. Ultimately, long after your terms are up, you will have to live with yourselves and your sins of omission; and in Tom’s and Jane’s and Bob’s and Sam’s and Mark’s cases, commission.

During this critique I’ve intentionally used the word malevolence instead of evil because that word is so stigmatized. But make no mistake, I’m talking about how the city staff and the city council is conspiring through political demagoguery, the abuse of office, turning a blind eye to the malfeasance, and outright deception, to infect the culture of the city with the cancer of institutionalized malevolence based on the psychopathologies of its leaders. Which, as it turns out, is ‘evil’ personified; and made manifest in Tom, Jane, Sam, Bob and ol’ mush mouth’s incoherent polemics against the poor.

The city council has become, in Dr. Zimbardo’s words, a vector of institutional malevolence through its lack of political courage in changing course when public feedback and your own lying eyes tell you you’re on the wrong course.

ACT II – How Malevolence becomes Condoned, Normalized, and then Codified

Now I’m going to pivot and use the current deadly policy to pull apart, in psychopathological terms, how social vectors of malevolence, created and condoned by the city council, allow for the personal pathologies of Sam and Bob and Mark and Tom and Jane to emerge in all strata of the community; handed down from thuggish bureaucrats like Jane and Tom, to thuggish councilmen like Bob, Sam and Mark, to a thuggish jail house review panel headed by Pella, down to a thuggish patrolmen like Lolotai on the beat, that abuse homeless, as well as ordinary citizens, indiscriminately and with impunity.

I’ll use their voting records, and the lack of meaningful staff accountability, to explain how the current city council’s stance against most of Boulder’s citizens’ sentiments concerning homelessness, police brutality, and housing are continually and cavalierly brushed aside as proof of the current vectors of malevolence within the institutions of governance that are twisting and damaging the culture of the old republic. In the midst of a crisis of leadership, accountability, and competence in offices held both by elected and appointed officials, I’ll expose the true nature of the demagogue and his demagoguery as seen through the lens of personal psychopathologies given free reign inside institutional decision making processes, and then how this attitude of callous indifference toward the poor is transmitted from the hack politician to the street level cop. I’m going to relate what I see in Sam’s and Bob’s and Wallach’s voting patterns as personal psychopathological tendencies toward sociopathy expressing themselves under the rubric of ‘the good of the community.’

I do this to show how their demagogic rhetoric is just cover for something much darker, collectivism, also known as tribalism in which demonizing the ‘other’ is nothing more then a Durkean and Hobbesian race to the bottom; man against man nihilism which has little to do with creating a sense of community. In other words, I’ll show the reader why these men play politics as a zero sum game for the voiceless citizens of the town, and why that is morally wrong in light of the research available to anyone with an internet connection; except for the council members without internet, who Jane suspiciously couldn’t find the money out of a three hundred and fifty million dollar budget to fund. Jane was a paragon of political pettiness.

All of my research is available at a mouse click, and most of it is on YouTube straight from the writers and researchers’ mouths. No need to count on Jane and staff for the truth because they’ve proven to be unreliable, if not downright deceptive in their report.

The Intellectual Hollowness of Fearmongering, and Scapegoating the Homeless

Let’s go back to the beginning. Bob is both a lawyer and a carpetbagger. Lawyers, by temperament are conscientious people; at least that’s how the majority of them rate on the Big Five personality profile. I would suspect his IQ is in the hundred and thirty range. This part of his personality profile can also be used for both Jane and Tom. These three are not ignorant people, nor I would suggest incompetent in the technical sense of the word, that don’t know what they’re doing or the deeper borderline criminal implications of their actions; here I cite Tom’s ongoing voter suppression by playing the ‘incompetent’ that can’t get his ducks lined up on petitioning, and the illegal camping ban he insists on re-presenting in spite of numerous court defeats, and Jane’s report on the public health homeless crisis that was fraudulent on every level, including its title.

But let’s get back to Bob. He comes from the corporate world, which is very undemocratic; and from that world we get the status-hierarchy career ladder as a modality of access to better goods and rewards within the authoritarian structure of the corporation. From that world he also brings the concept of ‘externalities.’ This is expressed in his ongoing opposition to Bedrooms for Boulder. His idea on how to keep property values high and taxes low is to externalize the costs of Fire, Police, Hospitals, and Education to Denver, and make people commute into Boulder every day for their jobs; a two-hour commute for most people, an intangible burden on the working class.

This is an inversion of his claim that if Boulder offered adequate services to the homeless community that it would become a ‘magnet’ for the homeless, a discredited theory in the literature on the subject, and ironically the opposite of his fearmongering rhetoric that exemplifies the demagoguery of the demagogue. Boulder is a parasite on Denver’s tax structure, and is externalizing not only the homeless health problem, but half of almost everything else, as well. Bob wants Denver to finance his ascendancy to the pinnacle of his carpetbagged fiefdom by way of threatening the city’s wealthy property owners with the fear of higher taxes, and the rest of the citizenry with the fear of unhinged criminal vagrants.

Bob’s attitude towards the homeless resembles the recent discriminatory immigration policy at our borders. And, like his evil genius Republican alter egos, he, along with Tom and Jane and Sam and Mark, have built a wall of illegal statutes based on unproven accusations while failing to hold accountable the incompetence in the staff report, or the city attorney’s offices, or on the police payroll, when it favors tribal discrimination and fearmongering. Thus infusing into a healthy culture a cancer of deception and official obfuscation that has already been thoroughly disseminated as the status quo throughout the body politic by former Mayor Jones, former Police Chief Testa, former DA Garnett, and now DA Dougherty; and these are not even very good arguments that they present to the council for maintaining it. So that the question becomes, do we really need another day of Bobvillian theatrical ‘politics as usual’ informing a policy that is an obvious failure, or can the city council create something better, more interactively responsive to the needs of the People, more just and humane and less Bobvillian misdirection of grandstanding and fearmongering?

The problem for Bob, and lawyers like Jane and Tom and Mark, is that they don’t even know what motivates their own malevolence. They’re not given to critical self-reflection; they’re given to climbing power hierarchies by any means possible, even obvious deception, so it’s not in their temperament to think empathetically about those with lower IQ’s.

Nor are they informed in their perspectives by the four other types of personality profiles or IQ scores, or the weight of generational poverty; much less national labor trends and their local impacts, or the psychological dimensions of abuse and addiction. They are, in a few words, provincial, mercurial, hack politicians, lacking in intellectual curiosity and the moral benefits of pitiless self-reflection.

From Bob’s vote against pay regularization, to his threats to cut off donations to non-profits if they don’t support his goals, his political skullduggery has no bottom; or for that matter, no soaring heights to climb to either. On second thought he’s probably not as smart as I give him credit for being, and so here I turn to William Blakes’ words,

‘The wise man doesn’t see the same tree as the fool.’

Thereby reminding Bob and Sam and Mark that being politically clever and disguising personal pathological malevolence toward the ‘other’ as public policy is not the same as being wise, or even practical in governance. Sam, you couldn’t have picked a worse mentor than Bob Yates.

From Bobvillian Politics to Broadway

I have approached Bob and the rest of the council with the idea of the homeless all being princes and princesses, innocent children when they started life’s perilous journey. I’ve also broached the idea that their concern for the ‘other’ might be religiously based in citing the poetic ‘there but for the grace of God go I’ notion of identification of the ‘other’ in them. Now I’ve turned to pure reason in citing these two books in my vivisection of their obvious political manipulation of the discussion.

The evidence is out there, if any of the council chooses to avail themselves of something other than the staff report on the homeless, but that would take real political courage; and as of yet, except for Ms. Friend, Mr. Swetlik, and Mr. Brocket, I see little. Mr. Swetlik and Mr. Brocket are coming up fast though; I just hope it’s fast enough to stop another man from dying. Both of these gentlemen are asking the right questions and are making some headway, as are Junie and Mary. Meanwhile, real people’s lives hang in the balance. Here I reference a video on YouTube called ‘Emerald Village’ about a tiny house project in Eugene, Oregon started by a church, Mary Young’s idea, and lauded over by all concerned; mayor and council, including those in the neighborhood of the tiny home village who’d initially opposed it. Broaden the discussion, and go beyond the conversation delineated by Sam, Bob, and Mark.

Class Warfare vs. Personal Sociopathic Tendencies

In conclusion I say that the city council has two choices in listening to the demagoguery vomited up by Bob and Sam and Mark concerning the homeless. Do a little research on the ‘magnet’ and ‘dirty hands’ theory concerning the homeless services offered nationwide and you’ll find that much of it’s been debunked by experts in the field, and then remember that the camping bans have been struck down several times in court, both of which point to political contrivance rather than good governance.

The evidence of Jane’s and Tom’s deceptions are easy enough to expose because we all know they’ve both been less than forthcoming with the facts, and proffered less than truthful testimony in the report, in voting, and in promulgating illegal statutes. Bob and Mark and Sam should already know this, so that the research to catch them out is out there and alternatives are out there in the zeitgeist too, and a little research on the rest of council’s part would finally strip naked their self-serving arguments and fearmongering. Don’t be content to rely on staff, which has a proven track record of incompetence and deception by way of your own citizen review boards.

This is where the personal psychopathological nature of these politicians’ subconscious narratives of the ‘other’ comes to the fore, and can be examined in the light of reason for the cancer upon the body politic that their dogma is, in creating a tribalistic, divisive agenda, sans facts. Remember, this essay is about describing institutionalized malevolence in terms of the leadership’s psychopathological tendencies.

You have two choices in assessing these men’s arguments. Either Bob and Sam and Mark are sociopathic, which is not beyond the realm of possibility as the business community CEOs rank among the highest scores, one in five, for sociopathic tendencies, and Bob is a former vice president of a multi-national corporation, and appears to be their philosophical leader. Or, that this policy and these men are the actual faces and hollow arguments of class warfare.

The point is that neither of these options is great because it means these men are pursuing a political ‘dirty hands’ policy, rather than a fact-based policy toward the homeless, or conversely that they’re just carpetbagging idiots, Bob and Tom, and a few local yokels, Sam and Mark and Tom and Jane, in over their heads with Bobvillian Bob in charge; and that can’t be good for anyone, them included, when the public gets wind of what they’re up to.

As competent council members you might want to ask yourselves what’s up with dodging responsibility for the most vulnerable People in the community, as you try to form public policy by way of a fact-based, data-driven framework. I suggest these individuals are psychopathologically driven by subconscious forces within them that they themselves don’t understand, or are even aware of, and therefore don’t care about the Rule of Law, or honest intellectual debate or, not surprisingly, moral turpitude.

These people, Sam, Mark, and Bob, as well as Tom and Jane, are entitled, self-serving, and unable to deal with the truth in a straightforward discussion regarding the philosophical foundation of their political agenda outside of power, loyalty, and fear. With bold faces they deny the failure of the current public health policy that everybody else sees on Pearl Street by demonizing the victims of economic upheaval for things that are beyond the ken, but not the commonsense sensibilities, of the homeless.

The homeless know they’ve been screwed out of their futures by the millionaire and billionaire class; no national healthcare, no welfare net for moms or children, much less the morally wounded men who’ve been pushed out of the labor market by international treaty, and mechanization, and the death of mom and pop stores; hence the anger when they get that final shove by some smug, sanctimonious, reactionary carpetbaggers who really don’t know their own shit from Shinola as far as how good government policy is constructed. In summation, they’re incapable of empathy by temperament, and obviously intellectually incurious by nature; unfit for the office they hold.

Prince Ralphie’s Political Ambitions

Prince Ralphie, by bent of artistic reason discussed in letters like these is going to take the city council meetings from Bobvillian Theatrical Politics to Broadway, not by magic wish-thought of princes and princesses, or by personal acknowledgment of the Transcendent, but rather by demanding a more rigorous intellectual discussion of the real facts, and not the reports and actions vomited up by Jane’s and Tom’s malfeasance.

Obviously Prince Ralphie is an imaginary dragon in love with words and books and ideas, and has no real desire to run for political office, especially in a place in which he can’t establish residency beyond the imagination of its citizens, but he can form political alliances and create a platform with a thicket of named candidates.

In this manner these letters constitute the humble beginnings of a radical political movement; a call to radical social justice for Boulder’s never-named, but so treated, ‘second-class’ citizens; the homeless and forgotten men and women that have been brushed aside and abused by Tom Carr and the CJS, and all the other never-heard of heroes of long forgotten social justice fights. By creating a vision of a more beneficent Republic of Boulder and removing the Scales of Injustice from the eyes of the People, the Ralphie Revolution in the War on Ignorance will attempt to bring about a renaissance of the philosophically enlightened community!

Post Script

I’m afraid the irate caller was right; council’s decisions do have life and death consequences, and Sam’s flippancy toward public comments that are abrasive betrays contempt for the outraged citizens themselves; which, as it turns out, is politically more irresponsible than any inarticulate comments of those outraged citizens. The contempt you have for public comment time is evident at every meeting as you call into question their issues by pointing to their rough language, which discounts the anger and frustration that is sometimes not as well-spoken as your own eloquent defense of fraudulent staff reports on the homeless, and rogue cops that get sweetheart severance deals when fired.

They’re not talking about the cops that do their jobs, Sam; they’re talking about city leadership that condones institutional malevolence; although they can’t articulate that as well as I can … but that doesn’t matter … because either way, you can’t hear them.

Note also that Sam gives every councilmember a chance to comment on the public comments, so that the problem of speaking up against the intellectually insipid arguments leveled by Bob and Mark and Sam and Tom and Jane is always there; but alas, I see no councilmember hands in the air when time is allocated for council commenting on the public’s comments. The fact is, if the council had spent as much time worrying about how the man that froze to death found himself in that situation in the most beautiful city in America, rather than worrying about Jane’s being told to “fuck off” or Bob’s being called a “creep”; then maybe the last few meetings would have been more productive in the sphere of public engagement. But instead of dealing with the drifter’s death, council decided to spend their valuable time resetting the parameters for polite engagement with the citizens as a diversion to facing the growing anger in the community over council’s increasingly self-serving indifference, and taking that anger seriously.

That wouldn’t have been half as bad as it was to watch, if public engagement were a sincere process of self-reflection. But I’ve been writing the council for over a year, in a very civilized tone, on the record, and have yet to receive a single reply; which means you’re either hypocrites, and won’t mind being called out as such when I return after the pandemic, or outright liars. Take your pick, because the charade of desired community engagement seems, from my perspective, to be a fiction.

In light of the second death of a homeless citizen on the COVID Council’s watch their first year in office, the third for Bob and Sam, that I know of, and in light of their lack of acknowledgement of the death of Demetrius Shankling at the time of the George Floyd protests, or at anytime, and the blinding of Ryan Spalding by Sheriff Pella’s staff through criminal neglect, and the lack of acknowledgement of the work of officer Lolotai in disgracing his colleagues’ uniform, and the reputation of the town, these three men are not fit to continue to serve. They lack both the philosophy that informs a humanitarian vision of community, and the leadership skills of listening to anybody but good ol’ Bob who is poisoning the civil discourse with fearmongering. These men are the problem impeding a full and frank discussion of the public health issue because they lack the intellectual curiosity to find better answers than to lock up the indigent for being in ‘their’ town.

Is that eloquent enough for you Sam? How about you Bob? Mark?

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment