No Better Place To Deal Than Pitkin County

October 27th, 2006 at 06:42am Michael Conniff 2

There is no better place to deal drugs than Pitkin County, if a report filed by Pitkin County Sheriff's Office's Director of Investigations Joe DiSalvo in September 2004 is any indication. This latest information, obtained by Aspen Post, also answers the charge of local columnist Jeremy Madden, a Braudis apologist.

"There have been shifty and spineless attacks on the Sheriff that have mede allusions he is is not enforcing the laws," Madden wrote in the Aspen Daily News. "If someone has actual proof of this then it should be brought forth.... Just because he's not gung-ho to have is people spying on their fellow citizens does not mean he's not enformcing the laws."

Here, then, is actual proof that the Pitkin County Sheriff's Office does not enforce the law against dealers of hard drugs, as gleaned from official Pitkin County records--the horse's mouth, if you will.

In September 2004, DiSalvo met with a resident of Aspen Village who complained "that there is a constant flow" of traffic to a man suspected of dealing drugs out of his Aspen Village home.

"The people get out of the car," DiSalvo reported, "stay a few moments then leave."

That kind of pattern invariably indicates that drugs are being dealt, as DiSalvo well knew: "This pattern is consistent with drug dealing."

The Aspen Village resident told DiSalvo he knew of a man with a cocaine problem who came to the dealer's home "almost every day." DiSalvo said he would do a "knock and talk" at the dealer's door. But the dealer would neither answer the knock nor talk when DiSalvo came by the home "several times over the next few days." So DiSalvo called on the phone instead.

"I was familiar to [the dealer] because I had similar contacts with him in the past," DiSalvo wrote in his official report. "I told [him] that we had some complaints about heavy traffic at his home at all hours of the night. These visitors stayed for only a short time and left. I told [him] that I believe this behavior to be consistent with selling drugs. [He] did not deny any of the accusations. I also told [him] if he was dealing drugs to stop, or we will be forced to act on the complaints. [He] said 'o.k. I will.' I then ended my conversation with him."

When DiSalvo saw the resident who tipped off the Sheriff's Office a few weeks later, he told the Director of Investigations that traffic at the dealer's home "had decreased significantly, and hopes the situation is resolved."

This encounter and outcome have great significance to Jeremy Madden and those who defend the Sheriff's softball policies to the death. First, this is a story about a dealer, not a user. Second, this is a story about cocaine, not marijuana. And third and most important, this is about a dealer who was well-known to DiSalvo, not some harmless first-timer.

"I had similar contacts with him in the past," DiSalvo wrote in his report. He was, in other words, a dealer with a history in Pitkin County, not some putatively innocuous first-time offender.

To summarize: the Pitkin County Sheriff's Office has a policy of letting a known cocaine dealer deal drugs out of an Aspen residential neighborhood without arresting him or enforcing the law against dealing hard drugs in any way, shape, or form. Joe DiSalvo, the #3 man in the department and Braudis's presumed heir, was merely carrying out existing policy when he let the drug dealer go free to deal again. In the last ten years, the Pitkin County Sheriff's Office has not arrested a single drug dealer, according to Pitkin County records.

The offical clearance code for this case was "CI" or "Cleared, Investigator."

Now that's what I call shifty and spineless.

Entry Filed under: Basalt, Snowmass, Aspen, Crime, Pitkin County, Sheriff Race 2006

48 Comments Add your own

1. Wharf Rat | October 27th, 2006 at 12:35 pm

Michael,

That is an interesting example, and does suggest a methodology that is consistent with your assertion that there have been no drug dealer busts by the PCSD in the last ten years. I think you have done a fine job establishing that the Sheriff's Dept. has a policy of non-enforcement when it comes to illegal drugs.

A couple questions:

1. From a results-oriented standpoint, did DiSalvo's actions work or fail?

Essentially, it looks like DiSalvo gave a warning: either the person stops dealing, or a bust will be made. Your description suggests that the dealing stopped before DiSalvo had to make good on his promise to investigate, compile a case, bust, and prosecute. If the bust had been made immediately, without a warning, how would the situtation have improved? Another person in the court system, with a record, and perhaps a jail or prison sentence. And another dealer moves in to take his or her place. I think this may be what Chuck in Basalt was trying to articulate this morning on Con Games. It's one thing to identify a flaw in the PCSD methodology--clearly no one can logically defend the choice by law enforcement to not enforce the laws without getting into the slippery-slope of "the spirit of the law"--but it is another chore to link the alternative (immediate bust) with better results (a better overall living environment in Pitkin County). Which leads to the second question...

2. Why is there seemingly no direct link between the level of law enforcement and the level of drug abuse?
For those with experience in the legal arena, there is a concept in personal harm liability called "causation." For those in social science research and medicine, the concept of "cause and effect" is critical to understanding a problem and how to address it. It seems to me that a cause and effect error is getting in the way of your conclusion that law enforcement needs to be strengthened.

I was struck by your response to the Community Corrections officer's description on Con Games of the drug problem in the area. Once again, that type of testimonial is very persuasive in establishing the insidious consequences of drug abuse. But everyone knows that already. The real issue is whether there is a link between stronger drug enforcement and a decrease in drug abuse and related societal detriment.

If your assumed cause and effect is true, we would expect that there would be a more pronounced drug problem in Aspen than there is in Glenwood Springs. The caller clearly concluded that, in his opinion, there is a meth problem in Glenwood Springs and not in Aspen (although for some reason he thinks it is "on its way" to a neighboring community forty-five minutes by car). With full law enforcement in Garfield County, why is there a meth problem? Should we be investigating the law enforcement statistics of Lou Vallario? A recall, perhaps? Why is there not a meth problem in Pitkin County? If drug dealers have a pass in Pitkin County, meth should be everywhere.

Could the more logical analysis be that drug abuse is a deeper-rooted problem that is sourced in behaviors generally unaffected by law enforcement efforts? If you can't establish a causal connection between two variables, and the effect variable is a social problem, don't we owe it to ourselves to explore other variables which might actually have a cause and effect relationship with the problem and yield more positive results?

The example given regarding the "generally good guy" that went on a bender when he and his wife split up--did the fact that the drugs he abused are illegal and that the law enforcement officials in his jurisdiction bust and prosecute to the fullest extent of the law affect his decision-making? Obviously not. The cause and effect analysis would seek to identify the best ways to minimize the chance that a person would make the choice to turn to drugs in time of despair.

Sound like a difficult task? Absolutely! I think the appeal of "we need better law enforcement" is that it exonerates us as law-abiding citizens from actually having to face a difficult and complex problem. Turn it over to law enforcement, it's illegal, it's not my problem, the system will take care of it. Heads up! The band-aid isn't working and it's going to take creativity, money and a social commitment to put our arms around the problem.

(Ok, alpha, you can give me the "I live in a dream world" speech now
2. jeffNORML | October 27th, 2006 at 2:05 pm

my comments would be that your story does not include enough facts about what was observed by the police or the complaining neighbor to establish probable cause to arrest or even to obtain a search warrant from a court.

Cars coming and going at all hours and staying only a short time could certainly be an indication of illegal activity just as it could be an indication of perfectly legal activity. You assume a lot and the police do not have that luxury. A neutral magistrate that is doing his or her job correctly would want to know what specific crime was allegedly being committed and would insist on actual evidence before a finding of probable cause could be supported in good faith.

was further inquiry warranted? yes. and Deputy DiSalvo apparently did so when he conducted or attempted to conduct what is known as the "knock and talk."

If you truly have the courage of your convictions, con man, and believe that the allegation that the occupant of that home in Aspen Village was indeed a drug dealer, why don't you go ahead and publish the guy's name. If he's a drug dealer, i 'll bet he'd consider stopping that activity once exposed and if he's not, you'll probably just get sued for slander. So, please back up your conclusions with a simple follow-up and name names if you actually believe that the Sheriff's Dept. actually let a drug dealer off the hook.

Jeff
3. alpha6 | October 27th, 2006 at 5:43 pm

"your story does not include enough facts about what was observed by the police or the complaining neighbor to establish probable cause to arrest or even to obtain a search warrant from a court." Exactly. And if this Deputy did as Sheriff Braudis himself has said, that they "investigate" every "legitimate" complaint, as this was in that the complainant was not anonymous, the he would have actually investigated the allegation and tried to determine the nature of the criminal acts being committed. It is called making a case. You know, gathering information, evidence, etc. Knocking on someone’s door and telling them that their drug dealing is really getting on the neighbors nerves is neither an investigation nor a knock and talk as you suggested. A knock and talk is done when all other investigative avenues have been exhausted, which is clearly not the case in this poor example of police work.

So what do we have? One, Disalvo violated the Sheriff's own policy of investigating reported crimes, two, he advised a person engaged in criminal activity that his neighbors had complained against them, possibly putting those complainants in danger, and three did nothing to stop this person from engaging in future criminal activity except tell him not to continue doing it. Nice work head of the investigations department.

Lastly. The rest of the story. This was not the first time that individual had been warned about his drug dealing activity by the Sheriffs office. That a Sheriff's deputy actually lives next door to the dealing and part of the complaint dealt with the fact that that deputy knows what is going on and didn't do anything about it. That this individual continues to deal to this day and nothing is being done about it. Don't believe me; ask them about complaints since Disalvo was there in 2004. If they are not lying, you will see that not only did Disalvo violate law and policy by warning the guy, but he continued dealing in an “in your face” gesture that the Sheriff and this community took on the chin.

You guys are amazing justifying these Barney Fife antics. Its 2006, the 70's are over. Grow up!

PS - Sorry WR - No time to debate your post tonight, which is once again well thought out...you win by default. : )
4. PastorMustard | October 28th, 2006 at 11:54 am

As has been pointed out, there’s not enough here quite yet to lynch DiSalvo. To make a bust, the DA needs better evidence than a neighbor’s complaint. Any TV crime show watcher knows that. Otherwise we’re back in Salem, 1692.
There’s plenty enough for a rush to judgment by con man though, as is typical. Also, the con man, recently emboldened by his CRMS blogging pow-wow, got to repeat the phrase, “shitty and spineless,” which seems to make him giddy with imagined clout.
This after ministering several sermons on blogging etiquette.
Con Man could, however, get proactive. Shave his head, get a neck tattoo, strap on a wire, and write, “NARC FOR RENT” on his t-shirt. Get something big on this guy whom con man and alphoid are dead certain was dealing.
I think there’s substantive journalistic opportunity there.
I was told a hair-raising story by someone caught (and not convicted) in Telluride busts 25 years ago. DEA agents were tooting massive quantities in the front seat of the unmarked car which was hauling my source to justice. “See?” they hollered at him, manacled in the rear seat, “This is what you can do if you’re on the right side!”
That’s what I’m talkin’ about. Real power. Not the passive-aggressive, tattle-and-hide power the con man reflexively warms up to in this “git the Sheriff” crusade.
5. Michael Conniff | October 29th, 2006 at 8:06 am

Reverend Pastor:

Golly. Telluride 25 years ago. Is that where your living now?
6. Michael Conniff | October 29th, 2006 at 8:07 am

And by the way, Pastor, the phrase is "shifty and spineless." Not shitty. An interesting slip, no?
7. PastorMustard | October 29th, 2006 at 4:29 pm

My mistake, it’s “shifty” for sure. Got the bad eyes, sorry.
Someone was characterizing your postings as shifty. I get it now.
What you're whizzing so quickly past here is that YOU THINK dealing was going down. What you actually know is doodley because you're assuming. Yet here comes not only Mr. Shifty, but his baboon assistant, Spineless, followed inevitably by alpha6, always the willing executioner, calling for DiSalvo’s head.
Salem, 1692.
(Witchcraft trials. Tragic rush to judgment. Evidence concocted from fear and hearsay. A morality lesson most of us learned.)
But hey, since you can’t get anywhere on your original allegation, you could pretend it was about me all along.
Just walk away, ConMan. There’s always tomorrow.
8. Michael Conniff | October 29th, 2006 at 5:40 pm

How about this, my dear Pastor?

How about not a single drug bust in ten years? That takes work--real honest neglect. In the case you reference, this was a dealer known to DiSalvo by his own admission. There was no controversy or dispute about what happened. How about no clue about the last two big drug busts right in Pitkin County? Dealers simply do not get busted, no matter what. Just the way you like it, yes?

I'm pretty good at insults, too, by the way, and by the way, it's "diddl(e)y" as in Bo, not "doodly." So be careful out there, or it might seem you yourself, a model of probity, are in a rush to judgment. Stick with your half-wits, your shifty and your spineless, and your baboons, and you can pick the description that fits you.

As for the Salem trials. I know their history pretty darn well. Based on fear and loathing, you might say. No similarity whatsoever to the present. Might I suggest "McCarthyism" instead? Coupled with your insults, the specter of communism as it relates to the Sheriff's neglect of the law is about as meaningful as a Satanic visitation with bluegrass playing in the background.

Cheers, Con Man!
9. stevet | October 30th, 2006 at 2:40 am

Inspite of the rhetoric there's still a few points worth discussing.

One, the observations by the complainant certainly leads one to believe that the actiivty the subject is involved in is worth investigating and investigating using the most appropriate and effective methods.

That said it's clear that wasn't done. What would those methods be? How about speaking with other people in the neighborhood to find out who else is aware of the activity. What they may have observed recently. What previous contacts have been made with the person of interest in this case. By doing so you can narrow down the dates' and times to a period where you would be most likely successful in making a contact after someone leaves the premises and see if you can develop any further leads in the case. How about networking with other agencies and find out what kinds of contacts they have had with your person of interest and what those contacts are. The most painfully obvious step would be to conduct a criminal history on the person of interest. The list goes on, but suffice it to say this is investigative steps 101 I mean come on give us a break.

Next, would it not be most important to follow the above course of action to see if in fact this is a valid complaint and if so take the appropriate action and stop the activity in the most effective manner. I can't grasp the concept of putting a drug dealer on notice and not doing anything....except waiting for the most painfully obvious result that after a month or so the person is just going to start again, if not there then somewhere else and degrade some other neighborhoods quality of life. Isn't that what all the politico's keep spouting about? Quality of life? Would it not be better to at the very least get this person in the system, put them and any other associates identified on the radar? Folow the leads to whereever it guides the case?

I may be wrong but....Is there some social redeeming value to unfettered drug dealing? Is it a plus for the community to allow the lives of others on the edge to inch closer at a more rapid pace by fueling their addiction by enabling such blatant dealing that it's like pouring gasoline on a fire?

I'm really missing the positive side of the collateral effects of this unabated and unfettered dealing. Is encouraging the person to spend more and more money on their addiction to the point where they steal from their friends, family, and employers a real boost for this community?

I'm sorry....no I'm not sorry I didn't blow this painfully obvious case....I just can't figure out this lame, laid back, cop-out.

You know....there was a helluva lot less damage done and more positive resutls by 50 officers last December in 2 bars than one deputy in one restaurant in the same year as I recall.
10. Brigadoongal | October 30th, 2006 at 8:32 am

Con Man...I listened to your radio broadcast the other day only because friends insisted that I have a good laugh. Keep it up boy...because every time you open your mouth the hatred you feel for Braudis is evident. This may come as a surprise to you but the people who actually know Braudis like him and respect him a great deal. Oh yeah Magnuson will get your vote...CHOKE... oh no he won't ,you don't live in Pitkin County. This town has spoken up in favor of Sheriff Braudis and will continue to do so.......try to get it con man....this town actually wants Sheriff Braudis to remain the Sheriff... Keep up your show and the donations to Braudis will keep flowing in and they do...Thanks as well for all the new people registering to vote for Bob and they are!! What will you do when this is all said and done....I hope you have a big hole dug in the desert....however, your sound effects won't be necessary. Blah blah blah........
11. Michael Conniff | October 30th, 2006 at 5:11 pm

Birgadoongal:

Assuming you're a woman.... so Sheriff Bob's non-performance on sexual assault cases is of no moment to you. You must find that REALLY funny. Also his hilarious claim that he has never done drugs as Sheriff-- a real knee-slapper that one!

I understand, of course, that the Sheriff will win in a walk and that his opponent is flawed and inexperienced (and sincere). The Sheriff is a five-time incumbent who has never been challenged before: of course he's going to win and win easy.

But you and I both know his life will never be the same, because he has been found out, beginning with his disappearance for six weeks at a "wellness clinic" that turned out to be a drug and alcohol rehabilitation center. He insists on education but has not a single education program in place; he says drugs are a health issue so I suggest you scrutinize his health. And oh yeah: he's committed to "community policing" but his force is all but invisible on the street and in the schools. How else do you explain his plea to his people to get out there and be seen before the election? If they were already "community policing," this would be a moot point.

Hate Braudis? I don't even know him. This is not personal. But can the Sheriff's supporters handle the truth--that he talks out of both sides of his mouth (at best)? That his longstanding dependencies have affected his performance? And that his day--and probably yours--is long gone?

Cheers, Con Man!
12. Keepaspenreal... | October 30th, 2006 at 6:40 pm

"This is not personal. But can the Sheriff's supporters handle the truth--that he talks out of both sides of his mouth (at best)? That his longstanding dependencies have affected his performance? And that his day--and probably yours--is long gone?"

Sounds like a personal attack to me Con Man.
Usually to comment on someone's health, personal choices, past, and overall character... you need to know them. But I guess assertions and assumptions is always an entertaining route. Oh, and please explain further your idea of "his day--and probably yours--is long gone", who are you referring to?

Honestly Interested.
13. Michael Conniff | October 30th, 2006 at 7:53 pm

Forget Sheriff Bob for a minute.

When pols says something on the record, it should mean something. So when a pol says he's one place when he's actually in another, when he claims to have a program that doesn't exist, when his management of his team is non-existent, it's not personal to say he needs to do better. It's actually anything but to ask a pol to say what he actually means.

The Sheriff is enjoying the tail end of what appears to be a rhetorical reign--with talk about community policing, drugs as a health issue, police in the schools and so on. (Not to mention his walkabout and his assertion he never took drugs as Sheriff.)

Perhaps you and those who support him could at least agree he's been less than candid, thereby raising the issue: why should we believe anything he says?

I await your answer.

Best, Con Man!
14. Aspendad | October 31st, 2006 at 8:48 am

It is amazing to me that we get to see these lengthy justifications for using drugs and the tortured arguments for non-enforcement of drug laws here in Pitkin County. Call my views simplistic, but as a father, I am disgusted with the lack of drug law enforcement here. What kind of example is being set for the children?

These are not victimless crimes. Moms and dads in Central America are killed continually and their orphaned kids are growing up to mule drugs into the US. This is being fueled daily by the wealthy Aspen toot-head that believes he/she is above the law.

The money that is being funneled through our local small-time dealer goes back through a variety of channels to big-time suppliers who also supply plenty of other crimes (read here murder, etc.) that we don't directly see because that ugliness is outside of our pristine little valley. Based on some of the responses that have been posted, I guess it is more important for some of our locals here to "be true to themselves" and get high than it is for some kid in Central America to have a living parent.

On another happy note, since enforcing drug laws is apparently not very important, I recently heard about one of our local gazillionaires's middle school kid that has apparently been making some good money of his own dealing drugs. Funny how kids learn their behaviors and model their actions on the adults that surround them.
15. Brigadoongal | October 31st, 2006 at 8:50 am

I have never read more crap in my life...you don't hate Braudis....BS. You are out to linch a Sheriff that does a great job...no one has said that the Sheriff was perfect but it certainly is evident that the people of Pitkin County are very comfortable with him and have a great deal of respect for him...and kudos to a man who wants to improve his health. Why do you keep harping on that? I think everyone knows about his rehab and the majority of people admire him for that and I'm sure in some way he has helped others because of his rehab. Actually I know for a fact that others were helped with his guidance. Why wasn't it an issue to any one until he had an opponent in the Sheriff's race? The Sheriff's office wasn't put under any scrutiny prior to the race. I'm not saying that issues should not be discussed but why now? Why not 1 year ago? I guess timing is everything. Rick's numbers are screwed up.Everyone in law enforcement knows that and so does the majority of the public. Records are run by the APD. One must understand stats and obviously Rick doesn't.
The Sheriff is certainly not at the end of his career and as for drugs I haven't heard of anyone stating the contrary but you Michael. Less than candid...he's the most candid man I've ever known. You on the other hand are the most coniving man ....is that where con man comes from? What the hell are you talking about when you say he has no management team? And by the way like I said before if the women of this County have been so mistreated don't you think there would be atleast an article in the paper a letter or something? Who are these women. Response would atleast be doing something about it. I know Rick and I totally question his sincerity as well. A shady character at best.
16. Michael Conniff | October 31st, 2006 at 9:19 am

He lied about going into a "wellness clinic" because he wasn't willing to be honest about going into rehab. And he didn't tell anyone about it outside his inner circle.

He's a public servant--he's supposed to serve and to tell the truth.

What about that, Brigadoongall, don't you get?

Best, Michael!
17. Brigadoongal | October 31st, 2006 at 9:39 am

What I don't get is you condemning him for that. He told quite a few people where he was going. I recall once when the Sheriff went away to Mexico for a few weeks.....no one was banging down the Sheriff's office door demanding to know what he was up to on his vacation time..Vacation time is Vacation time whether you spend it with a bunch of monks or bask in the sun in Mexico...He didn't lie to anyone when he was asked. You, by the way, are basing NOTHING on facts.What about that don't you get con man?
18. Brigadoongal | October 31st, 2006 at 9:41 am

Aspen dad,
As a concerned father did you go to the Officers at the school and inform them of your drug dealing friends kid?
19. TeleDogTwo | October 31st, 2006 at 9:44 am

Good post AspenDad...

Can't wait for the hypocrits to raionalize away your statements...

There is big word missing from the vocabulary of most fo the pro-braudis folks, especially pastorketchup, and that word is accountability.

They don't believe in it for themselves, or for their kids. That way they can just keep doing the easy wrong, as opposed to the hard right.
20. Aspendad | October 31st, 2006 at 10:05 am

I went to the parents. I don't know that the kid's activities ever took place on school grounds. It is my iunderstanding that the kid was smart enough not to bring anything with him into class.
21. Michael Conniff | October 31st, 2006 at 10:12 am

Brig:

He did lie about it. The Sheriff had Joe DiSalvo tell the Aspen Times he was at a "wellness clinic" doing Pilates and yoga because of high-blood pressure. No mention was made of drugs or alcohol.

Why can't the Sheriff be honest about ALL his substance issues. That I could respect in a big way.

By the way, are you a drug user yourself, or just a concerned citizen?

Best, Con Man!
22. Brigadoongal | October 31st, 2006 at 10:39 am

He was at a wellness clinic doing yoga that also happened to be a spa in which he was having a steam bath and trying to get healthier after years of drinking alcohol. You've asked other people in your blog if they are a drug user, is that your comeback? NO I AM NOT! Are you? Many people support Braudis - I can't believe you think they are all drug abusers? Do you?
Cocaine is a horrible drug...it destroys lives you bet. Have you ever done a line? Because you are supporting Rick who openly says that he's not out to bust the guy doing a line or mushrooms in his living room...aren't those people supporting the dealers? How do you think (I hope thinking is not a special interest and you actually do it all the time) we as the public and law enforcement should go about busting all these drug dealers in Aspen? Any suggestions? Just wondering what you think.
23. TeleDogTwo | October 31st, 2006 at 12:01 pm

hey Brig,
Name one responsible parent in this community, with kids in school, who has openly stated their support of braudis?
24. Keepaspenreal... | October 31st, 2006 at 12:39 pm

Con Man--First off you never explained comments in #11 like, "...his longstanding dependencies have affected his performance?". Please do give me your facts on that one. Otherwise it just sounds like an opinion which are laced in personal judgement and attack.
MR. CON--you have a blog read by many and are on the radio correct? Are you not subject to some sort of background check? Can the "evil" drug craving Braudis supporters dig up some dirt on you? This is not the point. The most important man in our public office, Mr. Pres, has been said to have been on that "evil" side at one point...and we not only gave him a shot but put him back in charge. We all deserve the right to change. I'm pretty sure we are protected by the constitution to change our habits in a positive way. We are creatures of habit and sometimes that involves changing those habits for enrichment of life. We should allow everyone that right without questioning their semantics(thats you MR CON) and only with support. That is the only way recovery or what ever the hell you want to call it works.
I'm not saying that this valley has not had some drug issues/problems. But please name a place in this country that hasn't. I can say that this valley has not had nearly the problem with some of the "hard" drugs like meth that have ruined parts of this country.

There is not a free pass of sorts--ie. the infamous Mel Gibson excuse of "I said it because of the booze" give me a break with that one. If anything it lowered his inhibitions to blurt what lies within. However, you should always retain the right to change something within your own personal well-being without being ridiculed in really a very immature way. Oh MR. CON, how will you respond? Please do include a list of past substance abuse and personal mischief for my personal laughs.
25. Brigadoongal | October 31st, 2006 at 1:05 pm

TeleDogTwo,

What hole are you in? Did you actually mean to state that there are no parents with kids in Aspen Schools who are going to vote for Braudis..I'm sitting here with 4 at the moment and no I don't have to tell you who they are. You will see plenty of them at the pols. We are awestruck that there must be some sort of secret PTA that are willing to back Magnuson. TeleDogTwo....Let's just wait and see what the pols say. Either there will be alot of parents that don't get out and vote or there will be so few that vote for Magnuson I bet it will be atleast 20 to 1. The numbers will speak for themselves. And try to get your head out of that hole in the sand.
26. Michael Conniff | October 31st, 2006 at 2:07 pm

FACT: The Sheriff was at the Desert Canyon Treatment Center for drug and alcohol rehabilitation in Sedona, Arizona. Google it. It's not a spa--it's a TREATMENT center for those with addictions. The Sheriff, in other words, was in rehab--i.e., a rehabilitation center. How come he can't just admit it?

Oh right, that would call the whole Aspen lifestyle into question.

FACT: The Sheriff has not copped to being addicted to anything, of course, but he has admitted to "seven day a week" drinking and the realization that alcohol is "a poison." He has also stopped drinking, according to what his own report.

It's not stretch to say he was dependent, if not addicted to, alcohol, a heavy drinker (by his own admission) during his time as Sheriff. Draw your own conclusions from there.

FACT: He had a well-documented drinking problem. He went to a rehab center without telling the powers that be.

Deal with it.
27. TeleDogTwo | October 31st, 2006 at 3:05 pm

Gee you think braudis is going to win!

No kidding! Wow, thanks for the insight genius.

My point is, there are no parents out there prominently campaigning for the big lug.

I am sure all the older stoners in this town, parents or not, will vote for him.

It would be helpful if there was a decent candidate running against him.
28. Brigadoongal | October 31st, 2006 at 3:43 pm

So you are saying that one must be an old stoner to vote for Braudis. What a load of crap that is.Thanks for the genius remark...I've always been told so but never in print . Thank you. And you are right about a decent candidate running against Braudis .. now that would have been alot more fun!. Where were you with all of your complaints prior to the race? Didn't have the gonads to say all this crap before did ya.
29. Michael Conniff | October 31st, 2006 at 3:56 pm

No, you don't have to be an old stoner...but it sure doesn't hurt.

Love, Con Man!
30. Michael Brylawski | October 31st, 2006 at 4:04 pm

Clearly Magnuson is a big long shot for winning, but for me (and I think Rick will play on this theme) the interesting thing is going to be what Braudis' margin will be.

Braudis supporters per the post above are assuming a "20 to 1" margin; with the handicapping of the extreme bias of the Daily News (read today's Aspen Daily News endorsement, not to speak of its disappointingly effective pseudo-scandal), the "Braudis machine" endorsments and funding of the campaign (anyone else see Harrison Ford's Braudis button in the Times last week?), and the diversion of the real issues from actual performance and policies to Rick's art and drug-use philosophies (not actual policies such as education), Rick has an extreme uphill battle.

But what if Magnuson gets more than the 5% the Braudis supporters arrogantly assume? More than 15%? More than 20% More than 30%?

To me, this would send a signal--despite the handicap--people are clamoring for change. I'd watch this election closely, because it's about much more than who wins and loses. If Magnuson gets a decent vote, Bob better be prepared to look into his policies and make some changes.

That said, I hope voters now can see behind the Braudis' and Daily News' tactics and put in a vote for Magnuson. At this point, it's a Nader vote--a strong signal that we won't stand for complanceny.
31. TeleDogTwo | October 31st, 2006 at 4:07 pm

I am voting for Magnuson. I know he will lose, but I hope there is a significant number of people who are sick of the lack of accountability in this sheriff's administration, and that next time around, if big ol' bob is still interested, a more qualified candidate appears to run against him.
32. TeleDogTwo | October 31st, 2006 at 4:09 pm

hey bridagoon...this is before the election!

It's next week, right?

Or, is it fixed? Is there something you know that we don't know?
33. Lost Sailor | October 31st, 2006 at 4:13 pm

this election is a joke - we all know that by now. as a parent with a kid in the schools here, i appreciate all of y'all's concern.

the conman will continue his anti-braudis jihad right uptil the bitter end of election day.

until then you better start mentally preparing yourself for the reality that braudis is going to be sheriff for four more years, like he should be. and let's all agree that what dialogue came from the press and debate will make the sheriff department better.

and michael - like i said before - i bet you'll look back on this and kinda wish you'd treated the situation a little differently. or not. not that you'd admit it publicly if you did on air.

i'm real glad that braudis and ryersone came to an agreement too.

personally i kinda like the sheriff's dept, and my town, just the way it is now.

- i already early voted for braudis -

now everybody relax and put on a costume and get out there and have some fun tonite, goddammit!
34. Lost Sailor | October 31st, 2006 at 4:16 pm

ps - my costume tonite is a pitkin county jail outfit with a hunter thompson for sheriff sign on the front, and my re-elect bob braudis sticker on the back!

come and say hi - i'll buy you a beer!
35. Michael Conniff | October 31st, 2006 at 4:19 pm

Before I brought this up on Aspen Post and "Con Games," NOBODY was talking about it. Read my earlier post about Braudis, "The Untouchable." Now lots of people are talking about it. He was a sacred cow for decades but no more, not ever again.

I've done my job and I'm proud of it, and I'm proud of the role Aspen Post has played in the debate and this election.
36. Edward Troy | November 1st, 2006 at 1:57 pm

Pro Sheriff Bob or pro Rick Magnuson. Enforce drug laws or don't enforce drug laws. I don't give a damn about that as much as I give a damn whether an abuser is a potential threat to me and people I care about. By having drugs illegal, the abuser who has already crossed the line of legality (thus that must be considered a minimal deterrent), they are now ready to steal and commit other acts where there are victims besides themselves. I am not a victim of someones substance abuse, I may be come a victim by what they do whether they are using substances or not. It is stupid to think the drug supplier is victimising you. It is the actions of the abuser that are the problem. Why can't people stop acting as though the substance abuser is a victim, they are simply consumers who sometimes willfully commit crimes.
37. Wharf Rat | November 1st, 2006 at 8:37 pm

Edward-

I don't recall anyone on this blog referring to a drug abuser as a victim. The fact that addiction is a disease does not exonerate any individual from their obligation to accept personal responsibility for his or her actions. I would bet that most, if not all, posters here would consider the actions of a person with a substance abuse problem to be consistent with the actions of a LOSER. Drug abuse is not cool.

What, pray tell, are the "potential threats" to you and those you care about posed by a drug abuser in Pitkin County? You indicated "theft and other acts". What are the "other acts"? Can we not agree that if drugs were regulated that at least theft would not be necessary? Are you aware of a criminal "theft and other acts" problem associated with an alcohol abuser? Nope, they just trundle on down to the local store to score their fix--no middle man, no middle violence.

I guess I just don't understand all of this circular reasoning that ignores the bigger picture. It goes something like this: We have all these problems, so we need to fix the problems by pointing out all the problems so everyone knows they need to be fixed. And since our efforts to solve the problems don't seem to be working, we need to redouble our efforts because apparently a solution to the problem that doesn't work WILL work if we just try harder. Good grief!

How 'bout some creativity, people? I'd like to hear some new, fresh ideas out there. Someone's got to have something other than the same old tired rhetoric.

Bloe,

I'm not sure what is more pathetic--the fact that your libelous post puts you in a league of your own in terms of moronic immaturity, or that you felt the need to replicate the post in some half-brained effort to spread the word. I, and others, have fought the Con Man on this drug issue the entire way and called him out repeatedly for having axes to grind, but no one needs to disrespect him or Michael Brylawski with juvenile insults.

I'm sure you have something intelligent to say, so say it. Otherwise, could you allow us the courtesy to keep the discourse out of the gutter? Thank you.
38. PastorMustard | November 1st, 2006 at 10:11 pm

Over my three decades in Aspen I had one coherent chat with Hunter and a few remarkable sidelong encounters. I still like to take out those moments and reflect. I envy those who spent more time with him.
Hunters has a few detractors rumbling around this blog and I’m sure they’d wonder why I miss him. After all, Hunter corralled the gamut of extreme humanity: edgy reprobate, mumbler, impulse disabled, self-involved egoist, etc. And armed.
You’d have to be a reader, a lover of literature. Hunter’s weirdness didn’t overshadow the brilliant flashes, the lightning perception, the acute sense of justice, the huge BS detector, and genius killer wit.
If we discount Hunter Thompson for personal craziness, we’d also have to discount Dylan Thomas, Coleridge, Edgar Allen Poe, Jack London, Truman Capote, and on and on.
We don’t really want purity tests for writers if we ourselves are going to be literate. Hunter wrote like a god.
So, however accurate Hunter’s detractors are in descriptions of his troublemaker traits, the truth lies elsewhere.
In fact, we all sense the flaw in those driven to demand purity tests provoking mob reaction, feeding pettiness. Eventually, every purity challenge gets ugly and the instigator ends up outcast.
I assume this is why Michael Conniff, began raving, unbidden, about McCarthyism. He framed this debate in terms of a purity test and went ballistic when we deigned to ignore, or minimize the very reality of his frame.
It’s the same drooling outrage you read in those posts which equate confidence in our Sheriff with advocacy of illegal drugs.
Every poster here shares a resolve that illegal drugs are bad for kids, society in general, etc. No one disputed that, ever. The dispute is solely over the tacit equivalency in Conniff’s frame—the setup. And that the framer gleefully disparaged nonbelievers. Look at the lying-ass fun Hannity is having with Kerry, or the resentment the Muslim world has with Danish depictions of Mohammed. Doesn’t matter if it’s a true believer or fake believer. The framer is deeply freaked if his frame breaks.
Conniff is prideful of his instigation in spite of the fact that he hasn’t proved ANY allegation, except circumstantially, and changes the subject any time he’s asked for proof—or even evidence. Consistently, the evidence he’s proffered doesn’t stand ready review.
If reading these postings does not inform your beliefs, ces’t la vie. The rich, the poor, and the intractably entrenched will always be with us.
Every man’s prerogative includes occasional vacations from his beliefs in order to assess their verity—if your mind is in working order.
Vote for Braudis.
39. PastorMustard | November 1st, 2006 at 10:11 pm

Over my three decades in Aspen I had one coherent chat with Hunter and a few remarkable sidelong encounters. I still like to take out those moments and reflect. I envy those who spent more time with him.
Hunter has a few detractors rumbling around this blog and I’m sure they’d wonder why I miss him. After all, Hunter corralled the gamut of extreme humanity: edgy reprobate, mumbler, impulse disabled, self-involved egoist, etc. And armed.
You’d have to be a reader, a lover of literature. Hunter’s weirdness didn’t overshadow the brilliant flashes, the lightning perception, the acute sense of justice, the huge BS detector, and genius killer wit.
If we discount Hunter Thompson for personal craziness, we’d also have to discount Dylan Thomas, Coleridge, Edgar Allen Poe, Jack London, Truman Capote, and on and on.
We don’t really want purity tests for writers if we ourselves are going to be literate. Hunter wrote like a god.
So, however accurate Hunter’s detractors are in descriptions of his troublemaker traits, the truth lies elsewhere.
In fact, we all sense the flaw in those driven to demand purity tests provoking mob reaction, feeding pettiness. Eventually, every purity challenge gets ugly and the instigator ends up outcast.
I assume this is why Michael Conniff, began raving, unbidden, about McCarthyism. He framed this debate in terms of a purity test and went ballistic when we deigned to ignore, or minimize the very reality of his frame.
It’s the same drooling outrage you read in those posts which equate confidence in our Sheriff with advocacy of illegal drugs.
Every poster here shares a resolve that illegal drugs are bad for kids, society in general, etc. No one disputed that, ever. The dispute is solely over the tacit equivalency in Conniff’s frame—the setup. And that the framer gleefully disparaged nonbelievers. Look at the lying-ass fun Hannity is having with Kerry, or the resentment the Muslim world has with Danish depictions of Mohammed. Doesn’t matter if it’s a true believer or fake believer. The framer is deeply freaked if his frame breaks.
Conniff is prideful of his instigation in spite of the fact that he hasn’t proved ANY allegation, except circumstantially, and changes the subject any time he’s asked for proof—or even evidence. Consistently, the evidence he’s proffered doesn’t stand ready review.
If reading these postings does not inform your beliefs, ces’t la vie. The rich, the poor, and the intractably entrenched will always be with us.
Every man’s prerogative includes occasional vacations from his beliefs in order to assess their verity—if your mind is in working order.
Vote for Braudis.
40. TeleDogTwo | November 2nd, 2006 at 7:26 am

Hey pastor,
No one, and I mean NO ONE, puts hunter in the same sentence as Truman Capote or Jack Londor or Poe.

Give me a break.

A student of literature, or a scientist, you are not.
41. Lost Sailor | November 2nd, 2006 at 8:10 am

free the heel, the mind will soon follow. rick is real lucky hunter is not around to abuse him verbally - what a howl that would be huh?!

hey wharfie - the drug problem seems to be woven into our societal fiber in america - al pacino's scarface character is a hero, kinda like how the sex industry is so pervasive - pornstar is a household word.
42. TeleDogTwo | November 2nd, 2006 at 11:01 am

lost seamen, how could hunter have abused rick or anyone else verbally?

One would have to be able to speak, coherently, to do so!

You hunter lovers are almost as funny as the braudis sycophants.
43. Lost Sailor | November 2nd, 2006 at 1:36 pm

forget it.
44. TeleDogTwo | November 2nd, 2006 at 3:42 pm

lighten up sailor...
45. Michael Conniff | November 3rd, 2006 at 7:53 am

Hunter Thompson belongs in the same sentence as Tom Wolfe, Gay Talese, Michael Herr, and maybe one or two practitioners of the "New Journalism" that Capote started with "In Cold Blood." He has a place in history on the journalistic side, and it's secure. Nobody's really come close to what he did at his peak over thirty years ago.
46. TeleDogTwo | November 3rd, 2006 at 8:47 am

Hunter outranks Tom Wolfe, but is nowhere near Capote.

You can link hunter to a new journalistic style, but that's about it.

Most of his writing is train of thought shock lit, with no real substance, unless you are interested in the rantings of an addlebrained author.
47. PastorMustard | November 3rd, 2006 at 1:12 pm

The authors mentioned were notoriously drug and/or alcohol addled. The list is long. As writers none were remotely addlebrained, but it's okay to have your preference among them.
In our culture the drugs we illegalize have almost zero societal value, yet they’re pervasive in society. Human history is long the way evolution is long. Our present culture isn’t. We’re told our brains have uptake receptors for various illegal substances, possibly indicating their role in defining our species during evolution. Our culture presently replaces peyote rituals, adulthood trials, fertility rites, vision quests and so on with simplistic admonitions of abstinence, all linked to fear of punishment. It’s our Calvinist/Puritan legacy.
The point is that we have no acceptable cultural ritual that links drugs to knowledge, wisdom, or adulthood. Those with the evolutionary urge to experiment have virtually no supporting cultural reference and make the link to wrongdoing. Unless yo’ mammy is a shaman, it’s not table talk.
Our culture is not homogonous though, can’t be. So, because they can never prevail, fear-driven Calvinist/Puritan absolutists always get caught like an increasingly frenzied gerbil in the rotary cage of enforcement and punishment.
There are sub-cultural avenues for the curious to explore, but all are fraught with danger and ringed around with charlatans.
That’s why Hunter famously said when asked if drugs and alcohol were good for young authors, “I can’t recommend it to anyone. It works for me.”
48. Lost Sailor | November 3rd, 2006 at 2:49 pm

amen to that quote pastor.

love him or hate him - hunter was a local legend - and for that i am a grateful aspenite. had a couple run ins with him over the years. first time i met him was at stapleton airport circa 76 or so - the aspen gate was right across from the united hawaaii gate - and i was standing there with my dad, probably about 13 yrs old.

so this freaky lookin cat with a cigarette holder, bermuda shorts, a lay around his neck, and a big plastic lobster pinned to his half buttoned hawaiiin shirt gets off the plane. he comes swaggering right up to my dad and says hello, he introduces me, then hunter starts off on a rant about some psychobabble - i walk away and get a soda.

we get on the rocky mountain airways dash 7 up to aspen, and about halfway through the flight i ask my dad who that freak was. he mumbles oh that was hunter - hes a writer.

so about three years later i finally make the connection with fear and loathing, and hunter at that movie where the buffalo roam with bill murray at the isis theatre.