CO-04 (Special Election) See Full Big Line

(R) Greg Lopez

(R) Trisha Calvarese

90%

10%

President (To Win Colorado) See Full Big Line

(D) Joe Biden*

(R) Donald Trump

80%

20%↓

CO-01 (Denver) See Full Big Line

(D) Diana DeGette*

90%

CO-02 (Boulder-ish) See Full Big Line

(D) Joe Neguse*

90%

CO-03 (West & Southern CO) See Full Big Line

(D) Adam Frisch

(R) Jeff Hurd

(R) Ron Hanks

40%

30%

20%↑

CO-04 (Northeast-ish Colorado) See Full Big Line

(R) Lauren Boebert

(R) Deborah Flora

(R) J. Sonnenberg

50%↑

15%

10%↓

CO-05 (Colorado Springs) See Full Big Line

(R) Jeff Crank

(R) Dave Williams

55%↑

45%↓

CO-06 (Aurora) See Full Big Line

(D) Jason Crow*

90%

CO-07 (Jefferson County) See Full Big Line

(D) Brittany Pettersen

85%↑

 

CO-08 (Northern Colo.) See Full Big Line

(D) Yadira Caraveo

(R) Gabe Evans

(R) Janak Joshi

60%↑

40%↑

20%↓

State Senate Majority See Full Big Line

DEMOCRATS

REPUBLICANS

80%

20%

State House Majority See Full Big Line

DEMOCRATS

REPUBLICANS

95%

5%

Generic selectors
Exact matches only
Search in title
Search in content
Post Type Selectors
May 19, 2013 06:23 PM UTC

Do Colorado PERA Retirees Have a "Duty to Die"?

  • 1 Comments
  • by: PolDancer

The average age of a Colorado PERA retiree has now passed 70 years.  In 2010, a majority of the members of the Colorado General Assembly determined that these Colorado residents were no longer full "citizens" of Colorado.  They no longer deserved protections afforded by the Colorado Constitution.

Agreeing with lobbyists in 2010, a majority of Colorado legislators decided that this group of elderly Coloradans should have no voice.  They were a burden on Colorado.  Lifetimes that had been spent serving Coloradans deserved no recognition.  Thousands of these PERA retirees were in hospitals or nursing homes.  Under no circumstances would these PERA retirees ever show up at the Colorado Capitol's lobbies to defend their constitutional rights.  The State of Colorado's contracts with these "residents" were inferior to the state's contracts with corporations.  Colorado PERA retiree contracts could be casually discarded.

"You've got a duty to die and get out of the way," said former Colorado Governor Dick Lamm decades ago.  The former Colorado Governor was speaking in support of physician-assisted suicide; nevertheless, his words came to mind in 2010 when the Colorado General Assembly voted to break Colorado's contracts with elderly Colorado PERA pensioners.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Lamm

The State of Colorado, the 15th wealthiest state in the nation, a state with an unexpected billion dollar tax bonus in next year's budget, a state that pumps $700 million into pensions that are not its responsibility while ignoring its own pension contracts, a state that recently granted $105 million in discretionary property tax relief . . . that state is burdened by its elderly and therefore must illegally seize their property.

As Colorado PERA officials have informed us, Colorado legislators have skipped out on their pension obligations for a decade . . . they haven't paid their pension bills (ARC).  In 2010, a majority of Colorado legislators decided to try and use recent market volatility as an excuse to take money from this group of PERA retirees (who, by the way, bear no "market risk" in their "defined" benefit pension plan.)  Colorado legislators decided to inflict a compulsory "shared sacrifice" on PERA retirees. This "shared sacrifice" was put into Colorado law, to help keep taxes low in the state with the lowest per capita state tax receipts in the country.  Each new year finds thousands of criminals convicted in the United States for misappropriating the assets of the elderly . . . tapping an old man's bank account for a "compulsory shared sacrifice."

IS THE STATE OF COLORADO OBLIGATED UNDER COLORADO LAW TO REPORT ITSELF FOR "ELDER FINANCIAL ABUSE"?

I find tremendous irony in the fact that the Colorado General Assembly has recently enacted legislation that requires reports of financial abuse of Colorado residents over 70 years of age.

"SB 13-111: Requiring Certain Mandatory Reporters to Report Suspected Abuse of Persons 70 Years of Age or Older."

(My comment: The taking of one-third of an at-risk elder's contracted, accrued, earned, "fully-vested" pension benefits to maintain Colorado's position as a "tax haven" is undeniably abusive.)

"Under the bill, on and after July 1, 2014, certain professionals (mandatory reporters) who observe the abuse or exploitation of a person who is 70 years of age or older (at-risk elder) or who have reasonable cause to believe that an at-risk elder has been abused or has been exploited and is at imminent risk of abuse or exploitation are required to report such fact to a law enforcement agency within 24 hours after making the observation or discovery. A mandatory reporter who fails to report commits a class 3 misdemeanor."

(My comment: Under this legislation, a person who steals a paltry $1,000 from an at-risk elder must be reported.  Why should an organization that illegally takes one-third of an at-risk PERA retiree's pension not also be reported?)

"A person who exercises undue influence to convert or take possession of an at-risk elder’s money, assets, or other property commits statutory theft."

"Within 24 hours after receiving a report of abuse or exploitation of an at-risk elder, a law enforcement agency shall notify the at-risk elder’s county department and district attorney’s office of the report. The law enforcement agency shall complete a criminal investigation when appropriate. Upon completion of an investigation, the law enforcement agency shall provide a report of the investigation to the at-risk elder’s county department and a district attorney’s office.

"On or before January 1, 2014, the peace officers standards and training board (P.O.S.T. board) shall create and implement a training curriculum to prepare peace officers to recognize and address incidents of abuse and exploitation of at-risk elders."

http://cbaclelegalconnection.com/tag/elder-law/

From the SB13-111:

"(e) The general assembly should study and implement specific recommendations for combating financial exploitation of elder adults . . ."

(10) "EXPLOITATION" MEANS AN ACT OR OMISSION COMMITTED BY A PERSON WHO: (a) USES DECEPTION, HARASSMENT, INTIMIDATION, OR UNDUE INFLUENCE TO PERMANENTLY OR TEMPORARILY DEPRIVE AN AT-RISK ELDER OF THE USE, BENEFIT, OR POSSESSION OF HIS OR HER MONEY, ASSETS, OR PROPERTY;

(My comment: "Deception . . . undue influence to permanently . . . deprive an at-risk elder . . . of her money."  This phrase perfectly encapsulates the Colorado PERA legal, lobbying, and political campaigns to break Colorado PERA retiree pension contracts in 2009/2010.)

(12) "Position of trust" means assuming a responsibility, duty, or FIDUCIARY relationship toward an at-risk adult . . .

(My comment, Colorado PERA statutes: “As FIDUCIARIES, such [PERA Board] trustees shall carry out their functions solely in the interest of the members and benefit recipients and for the exclusive purpose of providing benefits and defraying reasonable expenses incurred in performing such duties as required by law.”)

"THEFT FROM THE PERSON OF AN AT-RISK ELDER BY MEANS OTHER THAN THE USE OF FORCE, THREAT, OR INTIMIDATION IS A CLASS 4 FELONY WITHOUT REGARD TO THE VALUE OF THE THING TAKEN.

(7.5) ANY PERSON WHO EXERCISES UNDUE INFLUENCE TO CONVERT OR TAKE POSSESSION OF AN AT-RISK ELDER'S MONEY, ASSETS, OR OTHER PROPERTY COMMITS THEFT . . ."

(My comment: Colorado Court of Appeals on PERA pensioner property rights: “See Lynch v. United States, 292 U.S. 571, 579 (1934) (contract rights can constitute property interests protected by the Takings Clause) . . . In light of our conclusion that the court erred in that regard, we also reverse the summary judgment on the Takings Clause claim.”

http://saveperacola.files.wordpress.com/2010/01/2012-10-11-judgment-reversed-and-case.pdf

For the complete bill, SB13-111, visit this link:

http://www.leg.state.co.us/clics/clics2013a/csl.nsf/fsbillcont3/3006FD57CDD34B8287257AEE00570CDC?open&file=111_rer.pdf

In an eleven-page letter, dated August 2, 2010, from the Ritter Administration (Office of the Colorado State Controller) to the Governmental Accounting Standards Board, GASB, (the national regulator for public pension plans) officials of the Ritter Administration note that SB10-001 will cost every Colorado PERA retiree $165,000 over the next 20 years.  Ritter Administration officials in 2010:

“In Colorado, a class action lawsuit has been filed challenging recently passed statutory reductions in annual COLA increases which for an average member would result in $165,000 of reduced benefit over a 20 year period.” You can read the entirety of the letter on the GASB site here:

http://www.gasb.org/cs/ContentServer?site=GASB&c=Document_C&pagename=GASB%2FDocument_C%2FGASBDocumentPage&cid=1176157387791

Colorado Coalition for Elder Rights and Abuse Prevention:

"Our mission: to promote state-wide understanding of elder/at-risk adult abuse and the rights and protections available to elder and at-risk adults."

"What is financial exploitation?  The improper use of an elder’s funds, property or assets constitutes financial exploitation or abuse."

"By far, the greatest number of elder abuse cases involves some type of financial exploitation."

http://ccerap.org/

Not even the retiree organization, Colorado AARP, will defend the constitutional rights of Colorado PERA retirees.  In 2009/2010, the Colorado AARP decided to do nothing to defend PERA retiree constitutional rights.  Here is a statement from an AARP representative: “The (Colorado) AARP state office, with input from our volunteer leadership, reached the decision to monitor SB10-001.”  How does the "monitoring" of a breach of contract protect the interests of retirees?

"AARP ElderWatch is designed to operate as a clearinghouse for complaints, educational information, and training materials dealing with the financial exploitation of elderly Coloradoans."

http://hotline.aarpelderwatch.org/public/home.html

Colorado PERA active members, is this the future you desire?  A future in which contractual rights to your accrued benefits can be casually ignored by your employer?

Colorado PERA retirees, when state legislators ignore the Colorado Constitution they have sworn to uphold, courts must necessarily intervene to defend that constitution.  Support the rule of law in Colorado.  Contribute at saveperacola.com.  "Friend" Save Pera Cola on Facebook!

Comments

One thought on “Do Colorado PERA Retirees Have a “Duty to Die”?

Leave a Comment

Recent Comments


Posts about

Donald Trump
SEE MORE

Posts about

Rep. Lauren Boebert
SEE MORE

Posts about

Rep. Yadira Caraveo
SEE MORE

Posts about

Colorado House
SEE MORE

Posts about

Colorado Senate
SEE MORE

67 readers online now

Newsletter

Subscribe to our monthly newsletter to stay in the loop with regular updates!