DENVER DISTRICT COURT

1437 BANNOCK ST.

DENVER, CO 80204

MIGUEL LOPEZ,
Plaintiff

vs.

CITY AND COUNTY OF

DENVER,
Defendant.
COURT USE ONLY
Attorneys for Plaintiff:
LAW OFFICE OF CORRY & Case Number:
ASSOCIATES
Robert J. Corry, Jr. #32705
Abbey G. Moffitt #44170
437 West Colfax Ave., Suite 300
Denver, Colorado 80204
Telephone 303-623-2244
Rob@RobCorry.com
Abbey@RobCorry.com

COMPLAINT WITH JURY DEMAND

COMES NOW, Plaintiff Miguel Lopez, through undersigned counsel,

and files this Complaint against Defendant City and County of Denver

pursuant to the U.S. Constitutions First Amendment, Fourteenth

Amendment Equal Protection Clause, and Colorado Rule of Civil Procedure

106, for Declaratory and other relief as follows:

 PARTIES, VENUE AND JURISDICTION

1. Plaintiff Miguel Lopez is an individual residing within the City

and County of Denver, Colorado, United States.

2. Defendant City and County of Denver is a local governmental

entity.

3. Venue is proper in Denver County as it is the location where all

the claims alleged herein arose.

4. The District Court maintains jurisdiction over this appeal and

action pursuant to C.R.C.P. 106(a)(4)(I). An action brought pursuant to Rule

106 can include other independent claims, as here.

STATEMENT OF FACTS

Summary of History of 420 Event

5. Miguel Lopez has held a cannabis-themed event on or around

April 20 in Civic Center Park for over ten years. It is known as the 420

Rally, or simply 420.

6. These 420 events express a core political message and speech.

The concept of 420, for many, embodies rights of life, liberty, and the

pursuit of happiness. The concept of 420 also can relate to cannabis and

marijuana, and has become a global code word for these concepts, and April

20 has become linked with this concept.

2
 7. Denvers 420 Rally is the first and largest 420 event on Earth.

From humble beginnings, the event was founded by the late Ken Gorman in

the early 2000s well over a decade ago, with his bullhorn and attitude in

Civic Center Park every April 20, peaking at 4:20 p.m. Through the years,

Ken Gorman had gradually shared the leadership of the event with Miguel

Lopez.

8. In February 2007, Ken Gorman was murdered in his home in

Denver, a murder which was execution-style and not part of a robbery since

valuables were left in plain view inside the home, and still remains unsolved

by the City of Denver. Kens family wished to preserve the legacy of the

event, and so passed it to Miguel Lopez.

9. The spirit and voice of 420 would not be silenced despite Kens

murder. Instead, the Denver 420 Rally grew and evolved under Miguel

Lopezs leadership, and opted to pursue a permit from Denver and attempted

to fund safety and security operations through vendors on site similar to

other Civic Center events.

10. The Denver 420 Rally has been a substantial part of raising

awareness about Marijuana Prohibition. Over the years, Denvers 420 Rally

has safely brought happiness to hundreds of thousands of participants and

their friends as they exercise their right of free association. The Rally

3
prompts conversations and promotes education of the people, leading to

change.

11. In 2013, there was a shooting following the Rally at

approximately 5:00 p.m. The Denver Police stated that the shooting was

gang-related, identified a person of interest, had a primary suspect,

and confirmed the existence of video evidence of the shooting.

http://www.denverpost.com/2013/04/22/denver-police-420-shooting-

followed-argument-between-gang-rivals/

12. Despite all of these leads, like Ken Gormans murder, the City

of Denver also failed to solve this crime nor to charge anyone in connection

with this shooting. But this did not stop the City and County of Denver to

blame and penalize the organizers of the Rally for the shooting, as if the

tragic Boston Marathon bombing that happened five days earlier, on April

15, 2013, was somehow the fault of the organizers of the Boston Marathon.

13. This shooting purportedly justified the City and County

insistence that Rally organizers pay for and put up fencing around the entire

perimeter of Denvers Civic Center Park, and pay for and set up security

details to individually search and screen every single attendee,

approximately 50,000 people, for an event that is concentrated on a single

afternoon, in contrast to most other weekend-long events that are also fenced

4
in Civic Center Park. In addition to numerous other demands of the City, all

of this required the Rally to somehow capture revenue, in advance of the

event, to pay for all of the Citys shifting and expanding demands.

14. The Rally has risen to this challenge. The Rally has spent over

$2,000,000.00 throughout its history responding to the Citys requirements.

The Rally brings well over that amount each year to the City of Denver and

the State of Colorado in the form of tourism, jobs, revenue, and economic

activity.

15. The Rally has sponsored Grammy-award winning and national-

level talent such as Lil Wayne, Wiz Khalifa, Rick Ross, 2 Chainz, and also

highlights and gives an elevated platform to rising local talent such as

Hypnautic of Top Flite Empire, or Trev Rich.

16. Every year including 2017, the Rally has cleaned up completely

during the time allotted to do so, and left Civic Center Park in a better state

than received, all at Rally expense without using tax dollars.

The Citys Efforts to Prohibit and Revoke Permit from 2017 Event

17. On April 22, 2017, two days after the April 20 event, the Citys

Department of Parks and Recreation performed a walk-through of the Park,

agreed that it was left in pristine condition, and issued its formal finding of

alleged damages and permit violations following the event. The Citys

5
formal finding, conducted by actual long-time Denver civil servants and not

elected politicians or political appointees, found complete compliance with

all permit conditions including trash removal, security, and clean-up with the

exception of a broken sprinkler head, for which Miguel Lopez was billed,

and paid, $190.00. The City confirmed that all issues had been satisfied,

closed the matter, and Mr. Lopez began planning for 2018s event having

received absolutely zero indication from the City that anything was

untoward from the 2017 event.

18. Political appointees, and the Mayor himself, of the City

disagreed with the findings of the career civil servants who had fully

accepted Permittee Miguel Lopezs complete compliance with the permit

issued by the City. These politicians maintained their long-simmering hatred

of Miguel Lopez and of the issues for which he stands.

19. Thereafter and due to an animus against Mr. Lopez, cannabis,

and the political positions taken by the 420 Rally, the City orchestrated and

participated in a documented public relations campaign designed to

disparage Mr. Lopez and his reputation, harm his ability to put on future

events, whip up public opinion against him, and to ultimately create a pre-

text for suppression of his speech and ability to obtain permits for future

events.

6
 20. This campaign included highlighting misleading snapshots of

trash in Civic Center Park that was in the process of being cleaned up by the

Permittee, in advance of the Citys own deadline of 5:00pm April 21, 2017.

Every single photograph, disseminated by a compliant and uninquisitive

mass media or social media, showed trash on the ground before the time

period that Permittee was allowed to clean it up.

21. This public relations campaign succeeded in misleading the

compliant media, and some members of the public. The campaign

culminated when on May 19, 2017, the City disseminated to the media a

Notice Letter, incorporated herein by reference, which made allegations

regarding the 2017 event and attempted to penalize Permittee Miguel Lopez

through a warning, fines, prohibition on applying for three years, and a loss

of his priority status for future events. After the media had the advance copy

of the letter, the City then emailed a copy to the actual addressee, Miguel

Lopez, on a Saturday.

22. The actual substance of the allegations made in the Notice

Letter by the City were of a minor, technical, and pre-textual nature

designed to disguise the Citys true motivation; to silence the free speech

and associational rights of Permittee Miguel Lopez and other event

participants.

7
 23. The Notice Letter and attachments lacked many supporting

details, such as the identity of officials and police officers, times of

allegations, copies of formal police reports, and other standard

documentation that would be generated in any similar case, to the extent that

it is difficult to respond in a meaningful, substantive, or factual way.

24. The Notice Letter and supporting package is 104 pages, with

over half of this package (57 pages; pages 22-78) consisting of a copy of the

City and County of Denver Public Event Policy which applies to all

events; generic City brochures (pages 79-83); and even five blank pages (12,

84, 86, 100, 102).

25. Miguel Lopez timely appealed this Notice of Violations, and

the case was assigned to a Hearing Officer selected and compensated by the

City of Denver.

26. Following a day-and-a-half long hearing, the Hearing Officer

issued a decision which does not address the arguments made by Miguel

Lopez, witnesses called on his behalf, and his counsel. That Decision was

issued November 17, 2017 and is incorporated herein, and is a basis for this

appeal and the action brought pursuant to Rule 106.

27. As part of the administrative hearing process, Permittee was not

permitted to raise constitutional concerns, but expressly did not waive them,

8
and they are presented herein. See Denver Department of Parks and

Recreation, Administrative Citations Rules and Regulations, As Adopted 5-

11-12 and As Amended and Restated 11-18-15, Section V Notices and

Hearing for an Appeal, section G (An appellant may not base the

appellants case on a challenge to the enforceability, legality or

constitutionality of the Park Use R&Rs, Article I of Chapter 39, DRMC,

these Admin R&Rs or Article XII of Chapter 2, DRMC.)

28. The 420 Rally and Miguel Lopez are singled out improperly

because of the City and Countys hostility and animus against the message;

taste in music, culture, and art; participants; organizational leadership and

their history of political activism; and because of actions of third parties,

who generate the legendary cloud of smoke every year, but who are

persons not necessarily affiliated with the Rallys leadership and

organization.

29. Mayor Hancock, as early as 2013, has publicly expressed his

opposition to Mr. Lopezs message and the Mayors desire that the Rally be

terminated. See Michael Roberts, Denver 420 Rally: Attempt to Ban It

Would Trigger a Lawsuit, Attorney Says, Westword, April 26, 2017.

http://www.westword.com/news/denver-4-20-rally-attempt-to-ban-it-would-
trigger-a-lawsuit-attorney-says-9005174

9
 26. The Notice, and ensuing administrative hearing dealt with

specific allegations in five duplicative and overlapping categories; Noise,

Trash, Security, Health Violations, and Other City Violations.

27. The City pretextually concocted five allegedly separate

violations, because the first three violations can only result in a warning and

fines. Then, on violations four and five, the penalty can constitute a

prohibition on applying in subsequent years, and a loss of priority status

granted to any yearly-repeating events, a status that is earned after multiple

years of the same event on the same rough date. (For example, Cinco de

Mayo occurs on or around May 5, and has priority status, as does Earth Day,

Taste of Colorado, Peoples Fair, etc.)

28. After issuing its Notice letter and during the administrative

hearing process, the City abandoned its alleged violation for Noise,

because there was obviously no noise violation whatsoever, and then

subsequently mutated its alleged Trash violation into separate alleged

violations for allegedly failing to manage trash and clean up trash,

patently duplicative, but which allowed the City to allege five different

separate violations to achieve its objective of shutting down the free speech

of Permittee.

10
 29. Specific alleged violations were litigated extensively and

completely disproved by Permittee, yet the Citys handpicked hearing

officer abused his discretion and upheld all of the alleged violations and

upheld the penalties.

30. For example, with regard to noise, which the City first

identified as a violation, the City concedes in its letter that throughout the

event, all noise levels were within Denvers noise ordinance. (See Notice

Letter, page 2.) This compliance is verified through periodic checks

throughout the day performed by the Department of Environmental Health.

Despite the Rallys complete compliance with objective noise

measurements, that the Notice Letter concedes, an alleged violation is still

manufactured based upon complaints received from a handful of identified

staff in the Courthouse, which was located a few yards behind the main

stage of the event. The Notice Letter does not make clear when each of these

complaints was made, other than to say they were forwarded to the City on

April 21, 2017, the day after the event. Most importantly, the Notice Letter

concedes that the City did absolutely nothing to communicate with the Event

and its organizers or leadership about any alleged need to turn down the

volume, during the event or even days after. (See Notice Letter, page 4.)

11
 31. The May 19, 2017 Notice Letter is the first time the City ever

claimed any alleged noise issue or complaint. Obviously, the Rally was

given no opportunity to cure on April 20, 2017, which is required before any

noise violation can occur.

32. Obviously, the City knew and explicitly approved, well in

advance of the event, the Thursday/workday 10:00am-8:00pm scheduled

time and date, knew the size, placement, and volume of speakers and

amplified sound, knew exactly where the main stage and audience would be,

and approved in advance every aspect of the sound and stage.

33. The City knew that the Rally would be hosting a professionally-

produced free-to-the-public and well-attended concert with nationally-

recognized, Grammy-winning talent, 2Chainz, knew projections for

attendance throughout the day, and agreed with all of this. Event Production

staff Santino Walter and Mark Jordan repeatedly brought up with the City, in

preparation meetings, the issue of noise and the requirement that objective,

measurable standards be used and prompt notice of any alleged noise

problems be provided.

34. All alleged violations are covered by an important distinction

between the Permittee, Miguel Lopez, and a Permittee Worker, violations of

which can only result in a fine, but not prohibition from applying nor loss of

12
priority status. This is a distinction that both Denver and its Hearing Officer

ignored, abusing the hearing officers discretion.

35. These differential legal concepts of Permittee vs Permittee

Worker, with different penalty structures emanating therefrom, are defined

by Denver Parks and Recreation, Public Event Policy, adopted October 25,

2016 2.37, page 10 of 57, defining Permittee Worker very broadly as

follows:

Permittee Worker means any employee, worker, volunteer,

contractor, subcontractor, service provider, supplier, vendor,
exhibitor, performer, entertainer, athlete or similar person
authorized or retained by the Permittee with respect to the
operation and function of an Event.

36. By contrast, the Policy defines Permittee very narrowly, as

the individual who holds the Permit, in this case Miguel Lopez, the

individual person. Mr. Lopez has no employees. Contractors, volunteers,

service providers, performers, entertainers, and others are involved. See

Denver Parks and Recreation, Public Event Policy, adopted October 25,

2016 2.36, page 10 of 57 (Permittee means an individual or a non-profit

or for-profit entity who or which makes Application to, and obtains, an

Event Permit from the Permitting Office, for the holding of an Event.)

37. Penalties under the Policy are very different for acts committed

by the Permittee vs Permittee Workers. The Policy 8.4.4 provides for

13
penalties for the Permittee or any employees of the Permittee, up to a fifth

violation, which involves the three-year bar from the Event Permit.

37. Notably, penalties for Permittee Workers are enumerated in the

Policy at 8.4.5, and even up to and including a sixth violation, can only

involve fines, not barring from the event, nor loss of Priority Status.

Moreover, there is no evidence that--and the City does not contend--this

alleged violation incurred [sic] at the direction of the Permittee or with the

Permittees prior knowledge, See Policy at 8.4.5, page 52, so section

8.4.4 does not apply in this instance.

38. It is clear that the Citys goal is to stack five Permittee

violations for one single event (improper consecutive penalties) in order to

suspend the Rally, then attempts to concoct violations to fit this goal.

39. Moreover, a warning is not a violation. In this instance on

these facts or lack thereof, noise cannot constitute a violation. Thus, the City

cannot stack five Permittee violations, and cannot suspend the permit.

40. The Citys next allegation involves alleged delay in cleaning up

trash in Civic Center Park. The City does not allege that the Park was not

cleaned up, and does not allege that the City itself incurred any additional

expenses or other burdens, only that the alleged clean-up after an event

involving approximately 50,000 people, did not occur during the event.

14
 41. The Park was 100% cleaned up. Within the Citys allotted time.

Trash cannot be a violation. It cannot be two violations.

42. The City misleadingly and incorrectly cites its Attachment 5,

420 Rally 2017 Run of Show, as evidence of this alleged scheduling

inconsistency. See Notice Letter at page 5. In fact, the Run of Show (page 91

of 104 of Notice Letter), which, importantly, was reviewed and approved by

the City in advance of the event, clearly shows that Extensive Park Clean

up Power washing, etc. was approved to occur on Friday, April 21, 2017

from 8:00am 5:00pm. Complete clean-up was finished many hours before

the Citys 5:00pm deadline on April 21, 2017.

43. The Notice letter only identifies the timing of the clean-up as

somehow ineffective, not the ultimate result, which was that the 420 Rally

left Civic Center Park--once again--cleaner than the Rally received it.

Accordingly, this cannot be a violation, and certainly not a substantial one.

44. As above, the alleged violation, if any, is not a violation of the

Permittee, but rather of Permittee Workers. See Denver Parks and

Recreation, Public Event Policy, adopted October 25, 2016 8.4.4, 8.4.5.

Trash clean-up and removal was a contracted function with S&B Porta-bowl

Restrooms, MJ Productions, LLC, and others, as the Notice Letter and

attachments confirm.

15
 45. There is no evidence that the Permittee, himself, did not clean

up trash. Consequently, this cannot be counted as a violation by the

Permittee himself, if anything, only of Permittee Workers, which the City

defines.

46. The next alleged violation related to Safety and Security.

Beyond Boundary Ltd., the Event Staffing contractor, and the security

contractor each confirm that they had the respective required number of

staff, sometimes more than the minimum, at each entrance throughout the

event.

47. Fences that were knocked down during this popular event were

replaced quickly by the security company and the event staffing company.

Once again, in every event since 2013, the City demanded that all 50,000

participants in this event be individually searched, which occurred.

48. No violence or other incident occurred within the event.

Security and event staff detected and confiscated a firearm, and Police were

promptly called, and an individual was arrested as result of event efforts.

Long lines itself cannot be a violation, although the City and hearing officer

abuse their discretion in finding same.

49. As above, there is no action or inaction even alleged against the

Permittee himself, only by Permittee Workers, so this alleged violation, if

16
found, cannot add up to a stacked violation by the Permittee. See Denver

Parks and Recreation, Public Event Policy, adopted October 25, 2016

8.4.4, 8.4.5.

50. The next alleged violation, Health Violations, involves solely

conduct by Permittee Workers, namely food vendors or CBD vendors

allegedly unlicensed. The City identifies eight out of 170 vendors at the

event.

51. Initially, all vendors certified they had all appropriate licenses

as a condition of load-in. Those vendors who did not were promptly closed

down and required to leave by Permittee Workers as soon as the issue was

raised by the Department of Environmental Health. The contractors

responsible for verifying licensure by vendors had their contracts terminated.

52. As with all of the other alleged violations, no actual harm to

any person occurred, nor is alleged to have occurred. There were no actual

problems; no food poisoning, nor other unhealthy or unsafe conditions. Like

all other violations, these are cosmetic, paperwork, and hyper-technical

concerns. None of them are substantial, as is required. A finding that any

of these are substantial is an abuse of discretion.

53. All of these alleged actions were committed by Permittee

Workers, defined as including vendors by Denvers Policy. See Denver

17
Parks and Recreation, Public Event Policy, adopted October 25, 2016

8.4.4, 8.4.5. Thus, these cannot count towards a violation by the Permittee.

And they cannot constitute a substantial violation since the condition was

promptly remedied and no actual injury resulted.

54. The Citys final alleged violation is the duplicative catch-all,

repeating the same issues in the Safety and Security category, i.e. blocked

sidewalks, crowds, and fences knocked down.

55. The Notice Letters final violation contains strange formulation

that you also permitted your fencing to be knocked down into the adjacent

sidewalk. The Permittee did not permit any fencing to be knocked down.

Instead, fences were knocked down by unknown third parties, then picked

back up again, promptly, like with hundreds of other crowded events that

happen in Denver. A common occurrence, one that caused no harm.

56. Event Staff was actively directing people back on sidewalks,

assisting with directions in and out of the event, managing the flow of the

crowd, replacing knocked down signs, and otherwise performing their

contracted-for role, and received no direct complaints nor concerns from the

dozens of Police Officers and other officials present throughout the event,

and no complaints the day after during the official walk-through by Denver

officials.

18
 57. The City includes as evidence of this fifth allegation, and the

hearing officer improperly considered, photographs that are undated and do

not contain the time taken. One photograph shows three pedestrians in a

large in of pedestrians a few feet on the street, with Broadway traffic

appearing to move unabated. Another shows two small small pedestrian

signs laying in the sidewalk, again without a time or date, or any indication

of how long they remained down. (See Notice at page 97.) Anyone could

knock over these small signs, and anyone could pick them up. They could

have been on the sidewalk for a matter of seconds. This is petty and cannot

constitute a violation, cannot be substantial, and certainly was not

committed by the Permittee.

58. Other photos purport to show Bannock being reopened with a

truck loading port-o-lets in the street. (See Notice at page 98.) There is no

time on the photo. No traffic is seen. The photo was probably taken during

the permitted time of the event, which lasted until midnight April 21, 2017.

59. Another photo shows a sidewalk blocked by a 7 News vehicle

and another vehicle, with the caption that pedestrians are forced into the bike

lane. No pedestrians are seen in the photo. Filled black trash bags awaiting

pickup are in the photo. This photo was taken on April 21, 2017, when

19
media was directed by Denver to take pictures of trash during the permitted

clean-up effort.

60. None of the shifting five alleged violations can properly be

construed as a substantial violation of the permit, nor of any condition,

regulation, rule, or policy. Mr. Lopez the Permittee followed all conditions

of the permit issued by the City of Denver to the fullest possible extent given

the fluid and crowded nature of this massive event. None of the alleged

violations come close to being substantial. None of it caused any actual

harm to any actual person. None of the alleged acts were committed by the

Permittee, only by Permittee Workers. The hearing officer abused his

discretion in upholding these violations, and should be overruled.

CLAIM FOR RELIEF

(C.R.C.P. 106(a)(4) APPEAL OF JUDICIAL OR QUASI-JUDICIAL

DISCRETION; COLORADO DECLARATORY RELIEF ACT and RULE

57; CONSTITUTIONAL VIOLATIONS; U.S. Constitution, First and

Fourteenth Amendments)

1. Plaintiff incorporates and re-alleges each and every allegation contained

in the preceding paragraphs of this Complaint.

2. Defendant acted in a judicial or quasi-judicial function, and abused its

discretion in upholding the Citys alleged violations as substantial, and

20
 abused its discretion in ignoring the important distinction between

actions taken by the Permittee and Permittee Workers.

3. The City denied Mr. Lopez his constitutional rights of freedom of speech,

free assembly, equal protection, and other rights by treating him

differently than others similarly-situated with a purpose of exercising a

prior restraint and viewpoint discrimination due to the content of his

speech.

4. An actual controversy exists between the parties, the Plaintiff is suffering

ongoing and irreparable harm due to the Defendants conduct, and will

continue to suffer harm until which point the Defendants actions are

declared unlawful and enjoined by this court.

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests relief as follows:

1. To review the lower judicial or quasi-judicial body and find that it abused its

discretion in upholding the alleged violations;

2. enter a declaratory judgment that the Defendants actions and conduct

violated and continues to violate the First and Fourteenth Amendments to

the United States Constitution, as well as the

21
3. To enter a declaratory judgment that the City abused its discretion and

violated the Plaintiffs constitutional and other rights when it assessed and

upheld the alleged permit violations;

4. Any such further legal and equitable relief as the Court may deem just

and proper, and demands a jury on all issues so triable.

Date: December 14, 2017 Respectfully submitted,

LAW OFFICE OF CORRY &

ASSOCIATES

/s/Robert J. Corry, Jr.

(original signature retained at law office)
_________________________
Robert J. Corry, Jr.

22