Skyler Shepherd found guilty on all counts in Pineview Boating Fatality

Skyler Shepherd was found guilty on all counts in the Pineview boating tragedy in which Huntsville resident Ester Fujimoto was killed in August of 2011.

Friend Colton Raines was at the controls of Shepherd's boat when they accidentally ran over Fujimoto, who was swimming.   Shepherd took over the controls, returned to Fujimoto, then fled the scene and left Fujimoto for dead.  Robert Cole Boyer was also in the boat that hit Fujimoto.

Huntsville resident Vaughn Anderson heard Fujimoto's cries for help and rowed out to assist her in his small boat.  Anderson's testimony and a 22 minute recording of his 911 call were key elements of the trial.

The Standard offers more details:

Shepherd guilty on all counts in Pineview boating death

Sentencing is set for Jan. 23 on the charges of reckless endangerment and obstruction of justice, both class A misdemeanors, and failure to render aid, a class B misdemeanor. Maximum sentence for a class A misdemeanor is a year in county jail; maximum sentence for a class B is six months.

Further,

County Prosecutor Dean Saunders said more serious charges could have been filed if officers were able to take blood samples at the crime scene from Shepherd and Raines. According to testimony, Shepherd and Raines had been drinking that day and Raines had possibly been smoking marijuana.

The other two boaters will face trial in February.

Click here for more coverage of the trial.

Wethinks he got a slap on the wrist.  How about you?

Police identify boaters in Pineview fatality

Thursday's Standard Examiner identifies the three men in the boat that police say killed a Pineview swimmer on August 21.

From the Tim Gurrister article,

Weber sheriff’s deputies have seized the boat believed to have struck the woman. The recently unsealed affidavits have identified its owner as Skyler Shepherd, 21, of South Ogden. In the boat with him were Colton Raines, 22, and Cole Boyer, 29, both of Ogden, the affidavits state.

In an Aug. 30 interview at the sheriff’s office, Shepherd told investigators Raines was piloting the boat when it struck Fujimoto, according to the documents.

Deputies were told all three men were seen consuming alcohol in the hours before the collision with Fujimoto, and Raines and Boyer were smoking marijuana. The search warrants covered the boat, as well as the blood of Raines and Boyer.

The warrants were executed and the blood samples were taken from the two Aug. 30, the documents said, noting that traces of marijuana remain in the human body for up to 30 days after ingestion.

A witness who lives adjacent to the area where Fujimoto was swimming heard a woman scream and went to the water’s edge to see a boat occupied by three males with a woman floating in the water near the boat, according to the affidavits.

“The witness heard one of the males call out, ‘Hey lady, are you alright, are you alright?” reads the document.

The witness then rowed out to the scene as the powerboat with the three males departed. “He was easily able to tell that Fujimoto was severely injured and bleeding and told the 911 dispatcher that ‘her insides were coming out.’ ”

 The article goes on to state:

A witness who was with the three men at Pineview said he observed Raines and Boyer smoking marijuana in the afternoon on the boat before the early evening collision with Fujimoto, according to the affidavits.

Weber County Attorney Dee Smith said Wednesday the case is still under investigation with no timetable on a decision on possible charges.

Nearly 6 weeks have passed since the Sheriff's office identified the boat's occupants yet no charges have been filed.

A September 16, 2011 Standard article informs us that two of the men are represented by high power Salt Lake attorney Greg Skordas:

Salt Lake City attorney Greg Skordas represents the two men who have not talked with detectives, at his request.

"I've asked my clients not to make statements until I'm present and can go over the case," said Skordas, who didn't identify his clients.
"If the sheriff's office thought a crime (had been) committed, they should have charged (them) awhile ago. Asking my clients to talk about a crime that didn't occur doesn't make sense."

What say you Ogden Valley faithful.  Did a crime occur?  If so, what should be the crime and punishment.

Powder Mountain (aka Powderville) Update; Let's Talk Extortion!

By Ima Believer

LET’S TALK EXTORTION

Just my opinion, but I think what happened at the WC Commission meeting last night may have been the commission caving in to a well-orchestrated plan of extortion. I’m not a Utah lawyer; fact, I’m not even a lawyer, but I know a little about extortion, and I think we may well have seen it here. Here’s some random stuff from the net (in no particular order):

Answers.com

n, 2. Illegal use of one’s official position or powers to obtain property, funds, or patronage.

Britannica Concise Encyclopedia

Unlawful exaction of money or property through intimidation or undue exercise of authority (emphasis added here and elsewhere)

Columbia Encyclopedia

In most states of the United States, extortion is more widely defined to include the obtaining of money or property of another by inducing his consent through wrongful use of fear….

Law Encyclopedia

The obtaining of property from another induced by wrongful use of actual or threatened…fear, or under color of official right.

Virtually all extortion statutes require that a threat must be made to the person or property of the victim. Threats to harm the victim’s friends or relatives may also be included.

Under the common law and many statutes, an intent to take money or property to which one is not lawfully entitled must exist at the time of the threat in order to establish extortion.

American Lawyer.com

n, Obtaining money or property by threat to a victim’s property or loved ones, intimidation, or false claim of right….

Criminal.findlaw.com

Most states define extortion as the gaining of property or money by almost any kind of force, or threat of 1)violence, 2)property damage, 3)harm to reputation, or 4)unfavorable government action.

Utah Code Ann. 76-6-406 Theft by Extortion

(1) A person is guilty of theft if he obtains or exercise control over the property of another by extortion and with a purpose to deprive him thereof.

(2) As used in this section, extortion occurs when a person threatens to:

(b)Subject the person threatened or any other person to physical confinement or restraint;….

Utah Code Ann. 76-8-104 Threats to influence official or political action.

(1)A person is guilty of a class A misdemeanor if he threatens any harm to a public servant,…with a purpose of influencing his action, decision, opinion, recommendation, nomination, vote, or other exercise of discretion.

(2) As used in this section:

(a)”Harm” means any disadvantage or injury, pecuniary or otherwise, including disadvantage or injury to any other person or entity in whose welfare the public servant…is interested.

So here’s the deal: it appears that the essence of extortion is a threat to do something, even something the extortionist may otherwise have a perfect right to do, for the purpose of obtaining something the extortionist has no right to have (in this case, zoning density well beyond what’s on the property when it was bought, if the Pronaia boys or their predecessors had taken the time and trouble to look.)

In fact, in some other states, extortion can occur when that threat is made even if the extortionist has a right to the property sought and the right to take the action that is threatened! Remember, it’s the threat that’s bad. Here’s how that works. Let’s say A writes B a bad check. B has an obvious right to the money, and can sue A for it, civilly. B also has the right to go to the prosecutor and file bad check charges against A. What he does NOT have the right to do is to threaten A that he will go to the prosecutor unless A pays the money. That’s extortion.

If, having gone to the prosecutor, B receives an offer from A to pay the money, or even if B receives payment and drops the criminal case, no problem. But if B says to A “I’ll only drop the charges if you agree to pay me twice what you owe me,” that’s extortion. Isn’t this fun?

Are we getting the picture, here? Now, once again, that may not be the way things work here in Utah, where the law isn’t quite as well developed as in other states, but then again, it may be. Either way, it sure leaves a bad taste when it happens, doesn’t it? And when the Pronaia boys threatened to continue their campaign to establish their town and hold the citizens captive, without a vote, unless the county commissioners gave them more than twice the density to which they were entitled, the commissioners didn’t say: “Hey, that sounds like extortion!” They said: “That sure sounds reasonable to us.”

Wonder what they’ll demand next?

Predictable Outcome for Ogden Valley

Last night at the Weber County Commission public hearing on Powder Mountain it was no surprise when the Weber County Commissioners voted to accept the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) submitted by the Powder Mountain developers with a unanimous vote. The County Commissioners stated this was just a beginning, with much more work

to be done.

Despite the numerous Ogden Valley residents who spoke sincerely of their opposition to the MOU, citing the General Plan and fairness issues, it was clear in the end, that their well documented and logical points had negligible influence with the Weber County Commissioners.

To be sure, there were supporters of the MOU at the meeting and they spoke of their reasons for support. Most said they were affected homeowners who want to be free of the incorporation threat. They feel caught in a vise between the developers and Weber County. They must have forgot who put them there in the first place.

Commissioner Dearden spoke at length about the poorly written bill (HB466) that was passed in the state legislature and how these things happen. What he failed to address was the fact that when the bad bill was replaced a year later by a revised bill on incorporation, the specific section that generated this entire anti-incorporation uproar was left in place in an intentional and calculated move by the legislature.

Of interest was the presentation of Mr. Pierce of Pronaia when he said that in his investigation of the use of Transfer Development Rights (TDRs) around the country, TDRs have not been found to be successful. Not so much as a whimper was heard from the three Weber County Commissioners despite the fact that these same Commissioners have directed the GEM Committee and others to evaluate the use of TDRs for implementation in Ogden Valley, involving many hundreds if not thousands of hours of study and reports in recent years. Yet the Commissioners had no reaction when Mr. Pierce questioned the value of TDRs. This does not bode well for open land preservation in the future for Ogden Valley.

In addition, it was obvious that the Commissioners are dismissive on the issue of consistency regarding the 3 acre restriction that other developers and land owners have followed in Ogden Valley for the last twelve years.

Mr. Pierce also did his best to lay the blame for problems on the initial Powder Mountain developers (WAH) due to their approach and strategy. While he may have a point, Pronaia’s hands are tarnished as well for continuing to use the threat of incorporation to achieve their goals.

Mr. Pierce may feel this is somewhat unfair. Accordingly, The Ogden Valley Forum challenges Mr. Pierce and Pronaia to drop the incorporation with no strings attached to demonstrate good faith, and to continue this process using the offices of the Weber County Commission and the Weber County Planning Department to work out a non leveraged and equitable deal on the development at Powder Mountain.

Observations From Yesterday's County Commission Meeting, aka An Old Fashioned Dog and Pony Matinee -UPDATED

This is one of several important posts today, so scroll down to read them all.

Guest Post by IMA Believer

I attended the Commission farce yesterday. These people just don't get it. Both Zogmaister and legal beagle Wilson stated openly that their job is not to shut people down, but to bring people into compliance. Translation: they never met a commercial venture or a development they didn't like, no matter how bad it is. How about a casino, or a whorehouse, or an opium den? Sure, if it pays taxes, find a way to "bring it into compliance"!

They take their guidance from a slick little video put out by the Utah League of Cities and Towns (ULCT) that tells them that's what their function is. The ULCT? That's the developer/real estate lobbying group that opposed Gage Froerer's legislation last year to stop Powder Mountain Town. BTW, ULCT opposes it again this year. So the Commission and its minions take their instructions from lobbyists, for openers.

Next, the meaningless public comment period offered after the deed was done was truncated by the ever-rude and blustery Bischoff, complaining that Shanna Francis had exceeded her generous three minute allocation, when in fact almost all her time was taken up by legal department wizard Wilson who stuttered and stammered his way through a seemingly endless discussion of whether a comma means "and" or "or" or nothing at all. He even seriously suggested that the commission could have disposed of the whole matter by simply lifting Iris Hennon's cease and desist order. Just how would that be done legally, sir?

Bottom line: if you want to do something controversial, something marginal, maybe something really stupid and dangerous and noisy and dusty in the summer, just go ahead and do it--the commission will find a way to bring you into compliance. Forgot to plan ahead enough to follow the rules and file your app in time to get permission (if you can) the right way? No problem. Call Zogmaister; she'll approve anything.

And last, in fairness to Diamond Peaks, lest we forget, this application for an exemption did not come from Diamond Peaks, which has operated heliskiing operations for years without bothering anyone. It came from Wolf Creek Resort (with obvious handholding effort from the county)in its effort to buoy up trade at its no-doubt-struggling Red Moose Lodge by offering heliskiing right out its back door.

Make a bad business decision, say, to buy a motel with no customers, or a ski resort without checking the zoning first? No problem; call Zogmaister. She'll bring you into compliance.

Someone needs to remind these commissioners that they have a duty to the people who live here, not just to the people who want to come in and make money off the people who live here. Pehaps November might be a good time to deliver such a reminder.

Blogmeister Note:
 
Next, the issue goes before the The Ogden Valley Planning Commission in a meeting to be held:
Tuesday night, Feb.23rd
at 5:00 p.m.
in the Commission chambers in Ogden.

UPDATE:  2/17/10 @ 12:00 pm

Be sure to read today's article in today's Standard:

• Weber commission stands by exemption to ski helicopter service

Event to benefit resort town fight

Don't miss the Festivities this Friday the 13th and be sure to read this Di Lewis masterpiece in its entirety.

By Di Lewis (Standard-Examiner staff )

OGDEN -- Ogden Valley residents are becoming more imaginative in their attempts to defray the costs of fighting the incorporation of Powder Mountain town.

The latest fundraising effort is dinner, a show and a silent auction. Supporters of those who oppose the incorporation of Powder Mountain have organized a $100-a-plate dinner Friday night at Union Station, followed by a Powder Mountain-themed melodrama.

Steve Clarke, an Eden resident not in the proposed town boundaries, said the idea was spurred by requests for help from those within the boundaries who have already personally funded a district court lawsuit.

"They're appealing the case to the state Supreme Court, and having contributed more than $20,000 out of the neighborhood already, they asked for help," he said.

The idea has been in the works since August and has already gotten a lot of support from people all around the valley and Weber County. Clarke said more than a third of those who bought tickets actually can't attend, so they redonated the tickets to be sold again.

Residents will meet their goal of having enough money to take the case to the Utah Supreme Court and to lobby the Legislature next year, said Kim Wheatley, a resident near Huntsville.
People are so willing to donate and help because, once people understand what is happening, the story resonates with them, Wheatley said.

"Residents are so grateful and impressed by the people who have rallied to us and supported our cause," said Darla VanZeben, a resident within the proposed town's boundaries.

Clarke said the town's incorporation is becoming a larger and larger issue with people beyond the proposed boundaries, because they feel it is unjust and because they are worried about development issues affecting the valley.

"It's an egregious display of uncitizenlike behavior to try to override the will of the citizens and the law of the government," he said.

Donations may be made or tickets purchased from Chelse Maughan at (801) 745-4627 or chelse21@hotmail.com, or from Valley Market and Eden Coffee and Cocoa.

Weber County Commissioners to appeal the the 2nd District Court order

From today's Weber County Forum we read an update in todays Standard Examiner:

In addition, a back page 4B blurb that states the Weber County Commissioners unanimously voted to appeal the the 2nd District Court order regarding appointment of the Powder Mountain Town government.

Weber County responds to Powder Mountain Legal action

From Today's Standard Examiner: D. Lewis Reporter

OGDEN — Granting developers the right to create a town without input and then select town government without oversight is “tantamount to monarchy.”
At least that’s what the Weber County Attorney’s Office says.
In a response filed Tuesday to Aug. 26 litigation from Powder Mountain developers, the Weber County Commission acknowledges it was required by law to appoint a mayor and town council for Powder Mountain after the resort incorporated as a town on Aug. 5.
The argument now, however, is who gets to choose names on the list from which the appointments will be made.
Commissioners argue the law requires them to appoint “from a list of qualified individuals approved by the petition sponsors,” not from “the list” submitted by the town’s founders.
Tuesday’s response is the latest in the clash over Powder Mountain. The resort incorporated under a 2007 state law that allowed Powder Mountain to become a town without input from the county or residents of the affected area.
The commission approved incorporation, but refused to approve the developers’ list of six people submitted for town government.
The commissioners then worked with developers to create a larger list of 19 names, but once again declined to approve the list on Aug. 19 after they were presented with a shorter 11-person list.
While the commission states it was ready and willing to approve the town government, it felt the developers’ lists did not give commissioners room to exercise their duties to represent the people who would be part of the new town.
The petitioners — developers Mark Arnold, Edward Bates and Lee Daniels — contend the commission is required to appoint from whatever list they submit as long as the applicants are qualified, legally defined as registered voters having lived in the area making up the town for a year or more.
In response, the commission asserts this stance violates the Utah Constitution by delegating authority to control municipal functions to a private group.
Article VI Section 28 of the Constitution states, “The Legislature shall not delegate to any special commission, private corporation or association any power to … perform any municipal functions.”
The response also argues the selection of the town government is critical to the success and well-being of the town, especially because it was formed without outside input.
The response adds that, if the Legislature had intended for the commission to approve any qualified list from the petitioners, the law would have been worded differently.
The commissioners said they are supposed to protect the health, safety and welfare of county residents and attempted to do so by seeking input from both residents and the petition sponsors of Powder Mountain.
However, they feel they cannot fulfill their duties if forced to approve only the developers’ list.
Mellissa Cameron, spokeswoman for the developers, said Tuesday evening their attorneys had not yet seen the county’s response and she could not comment on it.

UPDATE: Be sure to read Rudi's post on the Weber County Forum regarding the County's response.

Ogden Valley Forum Exclusive - The Powder Mountain Press Release

We secured a copy of the original Press Release from the poor, picked on Powderville petitioners, and it should generate some interesting critiques from our readers. It is relatively short, so we will post it in its entirety below (emphasis added):

Press Statement

We, the petitioners for incorporation of the Town of Powder Mountain, filed an action against Weber County in the Second District Court on August 26, 2008. We do not take this course of action lightly; in the past, we have actually been extremely slow to publicly defend our position in order to facilitate good faith negotiations. However, based upon the Weber County Commission’s actions on August 19, refusing to appoint a Town Council and Mayor, we unfortunately feel we must exercise our legal rights.

The Weber County Commission approved the Incorporation Petition on August 5, and according to the law, upon approving the incorporation petition, it is the Commission’s mandatory obligation to appoint the Town Council and Mayor from a list approved by the petitioners. We presented a list of qualified individuals to the County for the Council and Mayor. These individuals support the town and are excited to serve and represent their neighbors. We have spent countless hours getting to know the citizens who will be residents of this new Town. Every submitted person was recommended to us by a fellow Town member. By refusing to make these appointments, the Commission has demonstrated they are unwilling to facilitate the incorporation of the Town as required by law. We have become caught in an effort by the commission to protect themselves politically, so we have determined that requesting relief from the court is our only option.

We care deeply about the land under our stewardship and about the prospects of the new Town encompassing that land. We have consistently been willing to talk to all stakeholders regarding the desires of neighbors, Ogden Valley and the County. Following the petition submittal, we held dozens of town meetings, as well as small group and one-on-one home meetings. We literally called every household in the town, multiple times, offering to meet with everyone and answer their questions. Then in February, when Commissioner Craig Dearden asked us to return to the bargaining table to work on an agreement to keep the development in the County and dissolve the incorporation petition, we chose in good faith to try to work things out again, something no other incorporating town has been willing to do. We had extensive talks and spent nearly seven months and several hundred thousand dollars in staff, drafting and professional time. These discussions consistently led to unfulfilled promises and the creation of a constantly moving target by the Commission.

We have never asked for nor do we desire any special favors, just a fair and impartial panel that holds the fate of this land in their hands. We want what every single property owner in this state desires and vigorously defends, our private property rights respected. In return we have been and will continue to be good neighbors and good community and government partners. If we were not so committed to this area, and to honoring all that this resort can and should be, we would have given up long ago. It is our sincere hope to quickly move past this phase and get to the business of being a Town.

End of Press Release

Now isn't that a touching piece? It almost brings a tear to the eye of even the most calloused and insensitive.

Surely many of the items mentioned could be refuted, but we would like to hear from the Powderville Hostages - Have the Powdervillians been "good neighbors and good community and government partners?"

Dozens of Town Meetings? If I am not mistaken, "dozens" means 24 or more. Did they in fact hold 24 or more town meetings? Or maybe they are considering private meetings amongst the petitioners to be "town meetings." After all, it is a company town.

Take it away, Ogden Valley. Do you notice any credibility problems?

Powder Mountain Town Issue Heading To Court

We are short on time this morning, so we will link you to the Weber County Forum where Rudi has provided us with an excellent run down of the most recent events.

It is no surprise that the arrogant Powdervillian's have once again continued with their strong arm tactics to get their boys (and girls) on the town council.

Powder Mountain article-Counter Point!

If you read the article today on Powder Mountain in the Standard Examiner, you will find how a supposedly non biased article can be slanted to fit any view desired by excluding other points of view.

Let’s dissect this article with known facts and see how it stands up for unbiased reporting:

1. Mr. Lowther sounds like he is the only homeowner that is not wealthy that will be affected by this forced incorporation.

FACT: Mr. Lowther is in the minority number of affected homeowners that favor the forced incorporation, a majority oppose it.

2. Mr. Lowther said “I think the best way is to have the local people control what’s going on rather than people that don’t live in the Valley and have no real concern for what’s going on up here.”

FACT: NONE of the Petition Sponsors for the Powder Mountain incorporation live in Ogden Valley.

3. Jamie Lythgoe said she is uniquely qualified for the position after working with the OV planning commission. Lythgoe also said she does not foresee any problems with a conflict of interest. She said “I don’t think anyone has a hidden agenda.”

FACT: The Planning Commission Procedures regarding Conflict of Interest Part A, reads: “A Planning Commissioner to whom some private
benefits may come as the result of a Planning Commission action should not be a participant in the action.” It also states, “The private benefit may
be direct or indirect, create a material, personal gain or provide a distinct advantage to RELATIONS or to friends or to groups and associations which hold some share of a person’s loyalty.”

FACT: Does Lythgoe mean like working (as she did) on the OVPC and at the same time the Town Incorporation plans behind the scenes? A conflict is already fact in our opinion and where is the concern for the public trust anywhere to be found?

In October of 2007 Planning Commission Chairman Louis Cooper and Assistant County Attorney Chris Allred were quoted in the Standard-Examiner
that they were both under the impression that the Cobabe family had sold
all of their interests at Powder Mountain. In addition, Monette Hurtado
was quoted as saying, “ As to the specific ownership, I don’t know the details.” Ms. Hurtado also said “She did disclose that her family sold all their land.”

More Facts: The Cobabe family still owns over 200 acres up in the Powder Mountain area, yet the leaders of this County refuse to address any conflict of interest.

5. The Standard Examiner reporter today wrote “Having three people from the same family's appointees has been a concern for opponents of the town”

FACT: It is the Weber County Commissioners that have opposed the family weighted list submitted by Powder Mountain in the two Commission meetings. The eloquence of Commissioner Jan Zogmaister was apparent when she stated they “could have a family reunion and have a quorum”.

One has to wonder why today’s Standard Examiner Article omitted the fact that the Powder Mountain representatives failed to answer the Weber County Commissioner’s questions on why Powder Mountain did not include any names of individuals interviewed by the Commission and a Powder Mountain representative for town council other than signers of the petition, Cobabe family members, employees or potential employees of Powder Mountain.

6. Mr. Lowther said “ he does see many potential benefits from the development, though, such as lower taxes and acquiring green space to compensate for development.”

FACT: When was the last time anyone around a big development saw their property taxes go down? The property taxes have jumped across the Ogden Valley due to all the new development in the past 4 or 5 years. Consider what will happen if Powder Mountain puts in their so called “World Class” resort next to our Valley? Your property value may go up, but that may only help if you want to sell. If you stay put, you are probably going to share in the dubious “glory” of substantial increases in property taxes in the future.

Larry and Sharon Zini