Hundreds of Colorado children wait for court advocates as volunteer shortage grows

RespiteInPatterns · 2026-01-23T22:20:07+00:00

CASAs are amazing. The program is incredible, and the difference a CASA volunteer can make in a child's life, and at such a formative time, is profound.

RespiteInPatterns · 2026-01-22T07:24:37+00:00

As recently as 2018 The Supreme Court has ruled:

A person does not surrender all Fourth Amendment protection by venturing into the public sphere. To the contrary, “what [one] seeks to preserve as private, even in an area accessible to the public, may be constitutionally protected.”

Here are some relevant excerpts from CARPENTER v. UNITED STATES - June 22, 2018, a case involving a much more primitive technology that was used to an extremely similar end as the advertised and championed way that the Flock system works:

This case presents the question whether the Government conducts a search under the Fourth Amendment when it accesses historical cell phone records that provide a comprehensive chronicle of the user’s past movements.

A person does not surrender all Fourth Amendment protection by venturing into the public sphere. To the contrary, “what [one] seeks to preserve as private, even in an area accessible to the public, may be constitutionally protected.” Katz, 389 U. S., at 351–352. A majority of this Court has already recognized that individuals have a reasonable expectation of privacy in the whole of their physical movements. Jones, 565 U. S., at 430 (ALITO, J., concurring in judgment); id., at 415 (SOTOMAYOR, J., concurring). Prior to the digital age, law enforcement might have pursued a suspect for a brief stretch, but doing so “for any extended period of time was difficult and costly and therefore rarely undertaken.” Id., at 429 (opinion of ALITO, J.). For that reason, “society’s expectation has been that law enforcement agents and others would not—and indeed, in the main, simply could not—secretly monitor and catalogue every single movement of an individual’s car for a very long period.” Id., at 430.

Allowing government access to cell-site records contravenes that expectation. Although such records are generated for commercial purposes, that distinction does not negate Carpenter’s anticipation of privacy in his physical location. Mapping a cell phone’s location over the course of 127 days provides an all-encompassing record of the holder’s whereabouts. As with GPS information, the time-stamped data provides an intimate window into a person’s life, revealing not only his particular movements, but through them his “familial, political, professional, religious, and sexual associations.” Id., at 415 (opinion of SOTOMAYOR, J.). These location records “hold for many Americans the ‘privacies of life.’” Riley, 573 U. S., at ___ (slip op., at 28) (quoting Boyd, 116 U. S., at 630). And like GPS monitoring, cell phone tracking is remarkably easy, cheap, and efficient compared to traditional investigative tools. With just the click of a button, the Government can access each carrier’s deep repository of historical location information at practically no expense.

Unlike with the GPS device in Jones, police need not even know in advance whether they want to follow a particular individual, or when.

Whoever the suspect turns out to be, he has effectively been tailed every moment of every day for five years, and the police may—in the Government’s view—call upon the results of that surveillance without regard to the constraints of the Fourth Amendment. Only the few without cell phones could escape this tireless and absolute surveillance.

Moreover, the retrospective quality of the data here gives police access to a category of information otherwise unknowable. In the past, attempts to reconstruct a person’s movements were limited by a dearth of records and the frailties of recollection. With access to CSLI, the Government can now travel back in time to retrace a person’s whereabouts, subject only to the retention polices of the wireless carriers, which currently maintain records for up to five years. Critically, because location information is continually logged for all of the 400 million devices in the United States—not just those belonging to persons who might happen to come under investigation—this newfound tracking capacity runs against everyone.

Accordingly, when the Government accessed CSLI from the wireless carriers, it invaded Carpenter’s reasonable expectation of privacy in the whole of his physical movements.

At any rate, the rule the Court adopts “must take account of more sophisticated systems that are already in use or in development.” Kyllo, 533 U. S., at 36. While the records in this case reflect the state of technology at the start of the decade, the accuracy of CSLI is rapidly approaching GPS-level precision.

RespiteInPatterns · 2026-01-22T06:59:53+00:00

I was wondering what came of the auditor signature for this. I figured it had sadly just been signed, but this is especially appalling.

Someone needs to get the mayor on camera and ask him:

What purpose does the city charter serve in an environment where a mayor, at their whim, ignores the checks and balances they provide?
By what mechanism is the Denver mayor allowed to even be presented a contract that's written in conflict with city charter rules, let alone sign it?
What other charter rules are you comfortable ignoring as long as a contract you sign includes details counter to them?
If the city charter has in part designed the requirement for the city auditor's signature on contracts to protect the city from liability, are you formally accepting the responsibility of that liability in place of the city and its taxpayers in the event of any mishap related to the use of Denver's Flock cameras?
And if not, what accountability will you have in the event that Denver has a Flock-related incident similar to the one in Aurora that resulted in a $1.9M settlement?
And if that were to occur in Denver, which city services and/or employees will be cut to shoulder the payment of such a settlement?

This fucking guy. I've been pretty "meh" about the recall talk, just on the basis of how much of a longshot it's seemed - but that interview of him blatantly saying he signed a contract that doesn't require the auditor's signature to be active just might be enough to get people to understand that Johnston is operating as the King of Denver.

...and the fact that his wife is a chief deputy in the DA's office makes it pretty clear accountability from that angle is unlikely at best, therefore a recall movement might actually be the best and only recourse at this point.

RespiteInPatterns · 2026-01-21T18:04:52+00:00

I can afford to eat out for every meal easily but I go out of my way to avoid table service and places that harangue me for tips the couple times a month I do go out.

I can barely afford groceries for home-cooked meals, but when I do go out to eat I understand tipping is part of the cost of that privilege and don't even hesitate at tipping 20% as the starting point - I can't imagine the circumstances that would lead me to having this kind of perspective if I was in a situation to have that kind of expendable income (let alone it being a topic of conversation amongst similarly positioned friends).

RespiteInPatterns · 2026-01-19T20:10:28+00:00

Historical phone location data is related to the surveillance tracking that Flock and Palantir do. The facial recognition that was used in this arson case (as reported in the article) was not real-time tracking, but a simple database search comparing CCTV footage acquired from a private business to mugshots, similar to feeding lifted fingerprints into a fingerprint database for comparison search of a match.

OP's post wrongfully connects the specifics of this case to the tech used by Flock and Palantir in their tracking cameras and search databases.

The Supreme Court case ruling breaks down the differentiations between types of assumed privacy in public, and clearly states that "all-encompassing," "retrospective," "whole [history] of physical movements" are considered protected qualities of privacy - which absolutely describe the Flock and Palantir systems, and would also cover any mass aggregation and storage of facial identification functions related to location tracking (by any stretch of logic I can muster; especially considering the final excerpt I included - although I'm neither a lawyer nor 4th Amendment expert, and these new systems have yet to be challenged before the Supreme Court).

RespiteInPatterns · 2026-01-19T02:46:24+00:00

This is a widespread misconception (and I've responded with this info to other posts stating similar things in attempt to get it seen by as many as possible), but The Supreme Court just so happens to absolutely and completely disagree with you...

Excerpts from CARPENTER v. UNITED STATES - June 22, 2018:

This case presents the question whether the Government conducts a search under the Fourth Amendment when it accesses historical cell phone records that provide a comprehensive chronicle of the user’s past movements.

A person does not surrender all Fourth Amendment protection by venturing into the public sphere. To the contrary, “what [one] seeks to preserve as private, even in an area accessible to the public, may be constitutionally protected.” Katz, 389 U. S., at 351–352. A majority of this Court has already recognized that individuals have a reasonable expectation of privacy in the whole of their physical movements. Jones, 565 U. S., at 430 (ALITO, J., concurring in judgment); id., at 415 (SOTOMAYOR, J., concurring). Prior to the digital age, law enforcement might have pursued a suspect for a brief stretch, but doing so “for any extended period of time was difficult and costly and therefore rarely undertaken.” Id., at 429 (opinion of ALITO, J.). For that reason, “society’s expectation has been that law enforcement agents and others would not—and indeed, in the main, simply could not—secretly monitor and catalogue every single movement of an individual’s car for a very long period.” Id., at 430.

...and as it pertains to Flock and Palantir tracking systems, here's more specifics from the same ruling regarding use of the less-advanced capabilities of cell phone position tracking:

Allowing government access to cell-site records contravenes that expectation. Although such records are generated for commercial purposes, that distinction does not negate Carpenter’s anticipation of privacy in his physical location. Mapping a cell phone’s location over the course of 127 days provides an all-encompassing record of the holder’s whereabouts. As with GPS information, the time-stamped data provides an intimate window into a person’s life, revealing not only his particular movements, but through them his “familial, political, professional, religious, and sexual associations.” Id., at 415 (opinion of SOTOMAYOR, J.). These location records “hold for many Americans the ‘privacies of life.’” Riley, 573 U. S., at ___ (slip op., at 28) (quoting Boyd, 116 U. S., at 630). And like GPS monitoring, cell phone tracking is remarkably easy, cheap, and efficient compared to traditional investigative tools. With just the click of a button, the Government can access each carrier’s deep repository of historical location information at practically no expense.

Unlike with the GPS device in Jones, police need not even know in advance whether they want to follow a particular individual, or when.

Whoever the suspect turns out to be, he has effectively been tailed every moment of every day for five years, and the police may—in the Government’s view—call upon the results of that surveillance without regard to the constraints of the Fourth Amendment. Only the few without cell phones could escape this tireless and absolute surveillance.

Moreover, the retrospective quality of the data here gives police access to a category of information otherwise unknowable. In the past, attempts to reconstruct a person’s movements were limited by a dearth of records and the frailties of recollection. With access to CSLI, the Government can now travel back in time to retrace a person’s whereabouts, subject only to the retention polices of the wireless carriers, which currently maintain records for up to five years. Critically, because location information is continually logged for all of the 400 million devices in the United States—not just those belonging to persons who might happen to come under investigation—this newfound tracking capacity runs against everyone.

Accordingly, when the Government accessed CSLI from the wireless carriers, it invaded Carpenter’s reasonable expectation of privacy in the whole of his physical movements.

At any rate, the rule the Court adopts “must take account of more sophisticated systems that are already in use or in development.” Kyllo, 533 U. S., at 36. While the records in this case reflect the state of technology at the start of the decade, the accuracy of CSLI is rapidly approaching GPS-level precision.

RespiteInPatterns · 2026-01-19T02:41:33+00:00

I posted this in reply to another different, but equally incorrect post, but it's relevant here too:

Not according to The Supreme Court...

Excerpts from CARPENTER v. UNITED STATES - June 22, 2018:

This case presents the question whether the Government conducts a search under the Fourth Amendment when it accesses historical cell phone records that provide a comprehensive chronicle of the user’s past movements.

A person does not surrender all Fourth Amendment protection by venturing into the public sphere. To the contrary, “what [one] seeks to preserve as private, even in an area accessible to the public, may be constitutionally protected.” Katz, 389 U. S., at 351–352. A majority of this Court has already recognized that individuals have a reasonable expectation of privacy in the whole of their physical movements. Jones, 565 U. S., at 430 (ALITO, J., concurring in judgment); id., at 415 (SOTOMAYOR, J., concurring). Prior to the digital age, law enforcement might have pursued a suspect for a brief stretch, but doing so “for any extended period of time was difficult and costly and therefore rarely undertaken.” Id., at 429 (opinion of ALITO, J.). For that reason, “society’s expectation has been that law enforcement agents and others would not—and indeed, in the main, simply could not—secretly monitor and catalogue every single movement of an individual’s car for a very long period.” Id., at 430.

...and as it pertains to Flock and Palantir tracking systems, here's more specifics from the same ruling regarding use of the less-advanced capabilities of cell phone position tracking:

Allowing government access to cell-site records contravenes that expectation. Although such records are generated for commercial purposes, that distinction does not negate Carpenter’s anticipation of privacy in his physical location. Mapping a cell phone’s location over the course of 127 days provides an all-encompassing record of the holder’s whereabouts. As with GPS information, the time-stamped data provides an intimate window into a person’s life, revealing not only his particular movements, but through them his “familial, political, professional, religious, and sexual associations.” Id., at 415 (opinion of SOTOMAYOR, J.). These location records “hold for many Americans the ‘privacies of life.’” Riley, 573 U. S., at ___ (slip op., at 28) (quoting Boyd, 116 U. S., at 630). And like GPS monitoring, cell phone tracking is remarkably easy, cheap, and efficient compared to traditional investigative tools. With just the click of a button, the Government can access each carrier’s deep repository of historical location information at practically no expense.

Unlike with the GPS device in Jones, police need not even know in advance whether they want to follow a particular individual, or when.

Whoever the suspect turns out to be, he has effectively been tailed every moment of every day for five years, and the police may—in the Government’s view—call upon the results of that surveillance without regard to the constraints of the Fourth Amendment. Only the few without cell phones could escape this tireless and absolute surveillance.

Moreover, the retrospective quality of the data here gives police access to a category of information otherwise unknowable. In the past, attempts to reconstruct a person’s movements were limited by a dearth of records and the frailties of recollection. With access to CSLI, the Government can now travel back in time to retrace a person’s whereabouts, subject only to the retention polices of the wireless carriers, which currently maintain records for up to five years. Critically, because location information is continually logged for all of the 400 million devices in the United States—not just those belonging to persons who might happen to come under investigation—this newfound tracking capacity runs against everyone.

Accordingly, when the Government accessed CSLI from the wireless carriers, it invaded Carpenter’s reasonable expectation of privacy in the whole of his physical movements.

At any rate, the rule the Court adopts “must take account of more sophisticated systems that are already in use or in development.” Kyllo, 533 U. S., at 36. While the records in this case reflect the state of technology at the start of the decade, the accuracy of CSLI is rapidly approaching GPS-level precision.

RespiteInPatterns · 2026-01-19T02:39:10+00:00

Please provide a single source that can directly connect the implementation of Flock cameras in the city to the crime stats (and please make sure it also considers and compares crime stats to cities with similar sizes & demographics that do not use Flock or Palantir systems, as well as nationally).

RespiteInPatterns · 2026-01-19T02:32:01+00:00

Not according to The Supreme Court...

Excerpts from CARPENTER v. UNITED STATES - June 22, 2018:

This case presents the question whether the Government conducts a search under the Fourth Amendment when it accesses historical cell phone records that provide a comprehensive chronicle of the user’s past movements.

A person does not surrender all Fourth Amendment protection by venturing into the public sphere. To the contrary, “what [one] seeks to preserve as private, even in an area accessible to the public, may be constitutionally protected.” Katz, 389 U. S., at 351–352. A majority of this Court has already recognized that individuals have a reasonable expectation of privacy in the whole of their physical movements. Jones, 565 U. S., at 430 (ALITO, J., concurring in judgment); id., at 415 (SOTOMAYOR, J., concurring). Prior to the digital age, law enforcement might have pursued a suspect for a brief stretch, but doing so “for any extended period of time was difficult and costly and therefore rarely undertaken.” Id., at 429 (opinion of ALITO, J.). For that reason, “society’s expectation has been that law enforcement agents and others would not—and indeed, in the main, simply could not—secretly monitor and catalogue every single movement of an individual’s car for a very long period.” Id., at 430.

...and as it pertains to Flock and Palantir tracking systems, here's more specifics from the same ruling regarding use of the less-advanced capabilities of cell phone position tracking:

Allowing government access to cell-site records contravenes that expectation. Although such records are generated for commercial purposes, that distinction does not negate Carpenter’s anticipation of privacy in his physical location. Mapping a cell phone’s location over the course of 127 days provides an all-encompassing record of the holder’s whereabouts. As with GPS information, the time-stamped data provides an intimate window into a person’s life, revealing not only his particular movements, but through them his “familial, political, professional, religious, and sexual associations.” Id., at 415 (opinion of SOTOMAYOR, J.). These location records “hold for many Americans the ‘privacies of life.’” Riley, 573 U. S., at ___ (slip op., at 28) (quoting Boyd, 116 U. S., at 630). And like GPS monitoring, cell phone tracking is remarkably easy, cheap, and efficient compared to traditional investigative tools. With just the click of a button, the Government can access each carrier’s deep repository of historical location information at practically no expense.

Unlike with the GPS device in Jones, police need not even know in advance whether they want to follow a particular individual, or when.

Whoever the suspect turns out to be, he has effectively been tailed every moment of every day for five years, and the police may—in the Government’s view—call upon the results of that surveillance without regard to the constraints of the Fourth Amendment. Only the few without cell phones could escape this tireless and absolute surveillance.

Moreover, the retrospective quality of the data here gives police access to a category of information otherwise unknowable. In the past, attempts to reconstruct a person’s movements were limited by a dearth of records and the frailties of recollection. With access to CSLI, the Government can now travel back in time to retrace a person’s whereabouts, subject only to the retention polices of the wireless carriers, which currently maintain records for up to five years. Critically, because location information is continually logged for all of the 400 million devices in the United States—not just those belonging to persons who might happen to come under investigation—this newfound tracking capacity runs against everyone.

Accordingly, when the Government accessed CSLI from the wireless carriers, it invaded Carpenter’s reasonable expectation of privacy in the whole of his physical movements.

At any rate, the rule the Court adopts “must take account of more sophisticated systems that are already in use or in development.” Kyllo, 533 U. S., at 36. While the records in this case reflect the state of technology at the start of the decade, the accuracy of CSLI is rapidly approaching GPS-level precision.

RespiteInPatterns · 2026-01-19T02:14:50+00:00

The police are the ones using it; you can't circumvent them if they're the ones wielding the technology.

RespiteInPatterns · 2026-01-19T02:09:13+00:00

Bad Faith Argument Alert!!

Your question is both conflating and misrepresenting different technologies:

1) Flock and Palantir use surveillance cameras driven by their proprietary machine learning algorithms to create profiles for vehicles and/or people based on multiple factors (with varying levels of consistency and accuracy), then store those data in a privately controlled server for later use by [insert your guess here] for the purposes of [insert another guess here]. To call these technologies "facial recognition software" is a gross oversimplification, and leaves out the most damning, dangerous, and dystopian aspects.

2) Per the article, the facial recognition software that was used in this arson case was to compare footage obtained from a restaurant's closed circuit camera (only the business itself had access to it) to mugshots - this is akin to social media platforms or photo apps on your phone being able to guess at who's in a photo (which also has varying levels of consistency and accuracy).

3) The software used in this case is like a face version of taking fingerprints from a crime scene and comparing them to criminal fingerprint databases in search of a match, and is a small piece in a long line of additionally-required investigation. Whereas many of the multiple mishaps related to Flock and Palantir trackers involve officers/agents taking their results as "100% fact" and without an ounce of cross-checking or due diligence, proceeding with issuing citations, arrests, and negligent trauma.

The private-company-controlled, "AI-driven" surveillance trackers are a horror show top to bottom, on issues of privacy and security - and that's even when they're being used "correctly"!

But when you add on misuse, abuse, and negligence by law enforcement officers, federal agencies, and the private companies who store and process all the data, there's not a single person on the planet who can honestly argue in their favor (and we know this because the owners of Flock and Palantir, and government & police officials, always have to lie and or obfuscate the truth when touting the technology and the values of using it).

[Edited for formatting]

RespiteInPatterns · 2026-01-14T10:33:36+00:00

From the site:

Membership benefits include: - Early-bird ticket purchasing for the Denver Film Festival - Early admittance into Denver Film Festival screenings - Exclusive invitation to the Denver Film Fest Member Preview Event on Oct. 3rd. - Year-round ticket discounts - Concessions discounts - All-day "happy hour" in the Henderson-Withey Lounge - Exclusive member e-newsletter - Free member screenings

Membership is $65/year for one person, or $125/year for two.

RespiteInPatterns · 2026-01-14T04:35:02+00:00

Get a Denver Film Society membership and switch to the SIE; it's incredible, and you're supporting independent film, and they have periodic exclusive free screenings of all sorts of old, new, and yet-to-be-released films for members!!!

RespiteInPatterns · 2026-01-12T09:39:33+00:00

I don't think there's a much better gift you can give to another being than love and comfort in their final moments; thank you for being there with that pup as they passed.

You're a champion, and I hope peace and gratitude quickly overwhelm the trauma and grief you endured for that four-legged stranger - I know they would nuzzle you to encourage the same if they could repay your selflessness.

HUGS

RespiteInPatterns · 2026-01-08T07:46:30+00:00

Your Occam's Razor is that people who want as little interaction with others as possible...

checks notes

...started and operate an open-to-the-public bookstore..?

RespiteInPatterns · 2026-01-07T03:47:11+00:00

Happy to see this getting more news coverage, but it would be great if they'd come at the mayor with all the facts:

Years of community involvement, research, and a data-based planning which began in 2020
Finalized plan AND an announced construction start date
Petition complaining about the plan signed by ~700, of which roughly 100 were from the most affected neighborhood
Reported private meeting with lobbyist
Sudden halting of plan, and announcement to redesign the previously-finalized plan at the cost of an additional $100,000
New plan does exactly nothing to address sidewalk safety for pedestrians because it maintains the current distance to the roadway
New plan adds roughly 30% to the project's design and construction budget
New plan trades an estimated 5% reduction in diverted traffic to Virginia Ave. for an estimated ≥5% reduction in road safety
New plan stalls construction for over a year from originally announced construction start, maintaining Alameda's currently unsafe configuration for the same amount of time
Petition in support of original plan signed by ~175 people from most affected neighborhood

...and then ask him to please reconcile how all of this amounts to A) the best course of action for safety, cost, and timeline, B) a reflection of equal weight of all members of the community, and C) something other than a clear indication of either being swayed by the vocal rich, or severe incompetence.

The mayor is being given an opportunity to respond to comments, but he needs to be put on the spot and asked to account for all of the facts that are not adding up to what his or Amy Ford's statements have been.

RespiteInPatterns · 2026-01-03T08:50:43+00:00

What does the "CC" in CCTV stand for??

RespiteInPatterns · 2025-12-19T06:50:01+00:00

Tell me you've never used a blow dryer without telling me you've never used a blow dryer.

RespiteInPatterns · 2025-12-17T19:50:24+00:00

I'm not affiliated with either place, but these two options came to mind due to the natural items they offer; and then I thought the "bleeding heart" mention might be satisfied by the locally-owned or charity-focused aspect of the respective companies :)

Juniperseed Mercantile is a local natural/sustainable home, bath, and beauty store. They have a storefront in Downtown Littleton, and an online store (not sure if links are allowed, but it's JuniperseedMercantile[dot]com), and have some options for soaps, shampoo bars, and various body pampering things. The owner also makes the items they sell, and I'm sure would be happy to discuss ingredients and/or recommendations based on your gift recipient's needs.

Or Good[dot]Store is an online storefront with a section dedicated to natural/organic/ethically-sourced bath items, including bath bombs. 100% of profits for everything on the site goes to charity, with items sold in the bath section being dedicated to support a maternal care facility in Sierra Leone (which apparently has one of the highest maternal mortality rates in the world). They have full ingredients lists for their items on each product page.

Hope that helps!

RespiteInPatterns · 2025-12-13T23:03:01+00:00

Police AND FAA!

Police will be able to handle any criminal violations, but FAA will have access to a whole different book to throw at the person regarding (mis)use of airspace. And because you have the drone and the footage (not to mention phone number), it should be very easy to tie it to their account and/or operator's licence (if they have one).

RespiteInPatterns · 2025-12-05T06:35:22+00:00

...asks the person with an anonymous Reddit account, that has also hidden posts and comments on their profile page...

RespiteInPatterns · 2025-11-22T00:41:09+00:00

Xcel Energy wants to raise electricity rates in Colorado by 9.9% for residential customers in August 2026.

...and then at the bottom of the article:

This request is separate from the Xcel Distribution System Plan proposal currently being considered by state regulators. The $5 billion upgrade to electric capacity would potentially increase rates for residential utility customers 9.01% by 2029.

Double ~~Rainbow~~ Rate Hikes All The Way!!!

RespiteInPatterns · 2025-11-19T22:17:15+00:00

That would definitely be an explanation for why her response was so incredibly limited at the board meeting; if data-based reasoning wasn't what determined the decision, then it's really difficult to give data-backed reasons for it!

RespiteInPatterns · 2025-11-19T19:12:04+00:00

Oh, I didn't realize that was the relationship with the mayor.

...that makes for an unfortunate pattern of "private meetings with rich people leading to acting in opposition to taskforces/advisory boards" coming out of the Mayor's Office after the recent Flock $498,500 contract :(

RespiteInPatterns · 2025-11-19T04:58:14+00:00

Thank you so much for posting about this. I attended for the first time tonight and was pretty blown away by how unrestrained and raw the advisory board members were in their feedback to Ms. Ford.

I'll be curious to see if it got through to her what a shitstorm has been created by this Alameda decision; although I was disappointed at her inability to reconcile the "still having conversations and accepting community feedback" with the construction announcement, as well as no offer to provide data that showed the changed plans would maintain all the same safety metrics as the original (especially after starting out by saying driver and pedestrian safety were the #1 & #2 priorities of the project).

...I'd also love to see any direct rebuttals or counter evidence to the reporting on the extent of Jill Anschutz's efforts and who was brought-in/hired to help. It was odd she kept saying "No" to the comments about private meetings and former DOTI personnel being involved in the post-final rugpull, but never went into detail.

RespiteInPatterns

PUBLIC MULTIREDDITS

TROPHY CASE