EXPOSING

More testimony by the head of the building department about the city forcing the Subaru dealership to shield all of the lights is in Vol. 7, pg.242, lines 7-21 where he (Glueck), states he didn’t believe he could force the dealership to shield all the lights. For Pete's sake, it’s the city officials that issue a C.O. and has the power to if need be, close down the business for failure to obtain a final C.O. (the correct way), by being in compliance with ordinances and not causing a nuisance. In my opinion, the City could have had the city attorney send a letter threatening a lawsuit if they didn’t shield the lights, or to revoke the C.O. under U.B.C., section 109.6. In my opinion, the city chose not to enforce their own ordinance for direct light, (nuisance for me and my neighborhood) and instead, in my opinion, city officials chose to aid in the maintenance of a nuisance by issuing the final C.O. to a business clearly in violation of ordinances at the time the C.O. was issued. Eleven other people agreed that the direct light was a nuisance. (6 jury members, 4 judges, 1 lighting engineer)

Winter afternoon, multiple violation of the sidewalk cleaning ordinance, Chapter 11.08.140 Vol. 7, pg. 242, lines 7-21.

In the closing statements (by the attorneys at the trial), the defense attorney made comments about me complaining of the dealership's landscaping, trees, the way they shoveled snow, and where they parked their cars (Court Transcript Vol.9, pg. 82, lines 13-17). I believe that Colorado Rules of Evidence 406 applied, when it stated the plaintiff can present evidence that can establish a routine practice. The Subaru dealership's representative didn't care about being in violation of multiple city ordinances.

Leland Anderson, a Jefferson County District Court judge, ordered that all lights that gave off direct light or glare were to be shielded properly, at the end of the trial in July 2004.

They already had their final C.O. thanks to the city officials.And yet, some of the violations put people's safety in
jeopardy, both pedestrian citizens and the firefighters when cars were parked in the fire lanes & radiuses, and public sidewalks.

When the trial was over, the jury ruled in my favor and awarded some damages. The district court judge granted relief in the form of a permanent injunction, ordering John Elway Subaru West to shield all lights that affected me or my property. The Chrysler - Jeep dealership had to fix the 3 separate auxiliary lights. Over $600,000.00 in total damages were originally awarded, but while in district court, the defendants, (Elway dealerships) agreed to a permanent injunction in order to take away an amount of over $400,000.00 in damages for any future annoyance and discomfort caused by the nuisance (of light). However, the damages awarded for past annoyance and discomfort remained. The amount for exemplary or punitive damages stayed because it was awarded to punish the defendant and serve as an example to others. (General instructions relating to damages. (5:3)) I wonder if the Dodge dealership and the RV Outlet will pay attention to this paragraph in particular.