***Please support the effort to hold Ms Stout accountable.  We will all be in attendance 11/15 6:30PM for the next council meeting, prepared to share our grievances against the village.  Please make the effort to attend***

Video of my testimony from the October 25 Council Meeting

Proof of the village's deliberate misstatements of the facts is in the record.  The Record link below is the official collection of all documentation relevant to our case including our arguments and the village's testimony during the appeal.  What we point out below are that the facts in the record were reported deliberately incorrectly to the district court in the village's official findings of fact document along with outright lies fabricated in order to justify Ms Stout's rejection of our legitimate building plans.

The Record.pdf

The Appeal video

Oct 25 Council Comments:

If you don't do it, you'll never get your fucking permit
That is how Ms Stout confronted me when she rejected our first application on July 19 . The verbal F bomb over the phone is the entirety of her official act of rejecting our first submission.
I ask you: What kind of organization allows even encourages verbal assault as valid official government behavior?
I have here my final Permit. It is dated July 20. And I have here my approved plans, date stamped August second. Can any of you explain why they don't match? And why did you the council tell the judge under oath that these approvals happened July 21 when that date appears nowhere in any official documents?
I ask you: What kind of organization does not competently track the dates and specifics of their official acts?
The last time I was here was July 20 2021 6:30PM and my wife and I spoke about the two rejections from Ms Stout. Why did you the council tell the judge under oath that our comments from that night somehow justified Ms Stouts second rejection when you know our second rejection had already happened three hours before we made those comments to you. It is a problem for you that none of you can point to anything concrete stating exactly when our second rejection occurred or why – because Ms Stout’s organization doesn’t track that.
Again I ask you: What kind of organization fabricates false statements and false timelines and false facts in order to justify their actions?
My time is short but you know I can go on. In fact I have. I've compiled eight misstatements you have made to the judge under oath. You can find them on my website along with the proof in the record at Badcoyotefarm,all one word, .com.
The failure to properly record your official acts,
the use of intimidation
and the willingness and apparent proficiency of fabricating facts
all point to rot in Ms Stout's organization.
I ask you one more time: what kind of organization does these things? My answer is An incompetent organization run by an incompetent administrator overseen by an uncaring or malicious government. That is the kind of organization that does these terrible things.
I strongly support Curt in his call to have Ms Stout terminated and I point to village code 2 82 and demand that you immediately call for a hearing for her termination based on mine and these other complaints before you.
Finally, I declare you the council to be in deliberate violation of NMSA 14-2-5, the public records policy that states that all persons are entitled to the greatest possible information regarding the affairs of government and the official acts of public officers and employees. It is the further intent of the legislature, and it is declared to be the public policy of this state, that to provide persons with such information is an essential function of a representative government and an integral part of the routine duties of public officers and employees.
I strongly suggest you get your shit together.
Badcoyotefarm.com complete misstatement list with proof from the record. Additional proof not part of the legal record is also in our possession.
1. PZA asserts our first permit was submitted July 19
Asserted in: Findings of Fact Finding 2.
Fact: The permit was submitted July 16 and PZA testifies to this in her letter to us Page 20 of the Record
2. PZA asserts our second application was rejected after July 20 Council Meeting
Asserted in: Findings of Fact Conclusion 5 and Village’s response to our statement of issues page 8 Item B
Fact: Our second rejection happened 4:08 PM July 20, 2.5 hours prior to the village council meeting. Page 77 of the Record is the rejection.
3. PZA asserts our third application was submitted July 21
Asserted In: Findings of Fact Finding 1
Fact: Our third application was submitted July 22 and rejected again before a final submission for approval August 2nd. The email chain that captures this is at Page 85 of the record – it is a link to another document.
4. PZA asserts our third application was signed on July 21
Asserted In: Findings of Fact Finding 1
Fact: The same Page 85 of the record disproves this assertion and PZA asserts under oath that she refused to discuss any approvals until July 23 Appeal 13:50-14:10
5. PZA quoted us stating we intended to use the 2nd plans as having a kitchen even if a kitchen was not on the plans
Asserted In: Findings of Fact Finding 6 and the Village’s response to our statement of issues page 8 Item B.
Fact: Our comments at the council meeting occurred 6:30 PM July 20 - after the second rejection of July 20 4:08 PM. Our comments are irrelevant and are nowhere in the record and on July 20 we clearly stated that the 2nd rejected plans contained neither a kitchen nor a bedroom.
6. PZA asserts she rejected Sue Gerber’s plans on April 19 for this same ‘connected’ definition.
Asserted In: September 16 Appeal 1:10:28-1:12:13
Fact: Sue Gerber’s application was not submitted until August after all this was done. In oral testimony PZA ultimately agreed that her definition had never been applied to anyone else before us. It is in the Sep 16 special meeting video at Appeal 1:13:00-1:13:25. We also have Sue Gerber’s statement although it did not make it into the record
7. PZA and Council lawyer asserts our plans were designed as a townhome, with a firewall
Asserted In: Findings of Fact Conclusion 5 and Appeal 54:55-55:45
Fact: In all submissions of our plans seen in the record Page 13 and Page 18 the wall between casita and garage is a simple 2x6 wall which meets no fire wall criteria as established by NM construction standards.
8. PZA asserts her interpretation of the new ordinance was discussed and reviewed by the council prior to use
Asserted In: Finding of Fact Conclusion 1
Fact: The council never saw this definition prior to PZA application upon us. As seen on Page 20 of the Record PZA ties her novel requirements directly to our plan submission.