by Craig Masters
In a recent example of abuse of power, physical and mental abuse, and the misuse of the legal system to intimidate any opposition point of view, Colorado congresswoman Cheri Gerou (rino – hd 25) has clearly crossed over the line from civil to criminal behavior.
The details of Gerou’s February 15th assault on a staff member of the Rocky Mountain Gun Owners organization have finally been made public this week by RMGO president, Dudley Brown.
According to Brown, the anti-gun position Gerou had taken in supporting the destruction of the Bill of Rights by Colorado’s Democrat-controlled legislature had been brought to the attention of her constituents by RMGO. Having her position exposed in her district resulted in calls and emails from voters urgingGerou to follow the law and vote to support the 2nd and 4th Ammendments to the Constitution. However, during this session of the legislature, she has adamantly refused to support the position of the people of Colorado, the Colorado Constitution or the U.S. Constitution.
Gerou’s record indicates she is one of those vote stealing politicians who disguise themselves as republicans to gain office in districts where their liberal values are less likely to win support of voters. The result of input to Gerou’s office from gun rights supporters was a violent public “temper tantrum,” as characterized by Dudley Brown.
Joe Neville, a gun rights supporter and staff member of RMGO, was “summoned” to Gerou’s office. He reported to her office on February 15th, where she repeatedly angrily assaulted him with the “F” word as she warned him to stop informing her constituents about her support for anti-gun legislation. When Neville was not baited into responding in kind, Gerou escalated the confrontation from simple verbal assault to criminal battery when she poked him in the chest “multiple times.”
Neville responded to the criminal assault by calmly “suggesting to the representative that he believed RMGO would notify her constituents of her behavior.” With that, Gerou reportedly exploded into an angry state again and called for the Sergeant at Arms. She lied to the Sergeant at Arms about what had taken place in her office in order to have Neville removed from the State Capitol before he might speak with witnesses or report the incident to others.
But that was only the beginning of Gerou’s abuse of power and the law. Within moments of lying to Sergeant at Arms, an act in and of itself in violation of the rules of conduct governing legislators, Gerou contacted the Democrat Speaker of the House and filed an official complaint against Mr. Neville: another criminal act, making false statements on official documents, as she demanded Neville be “investigated.”
The best defense is a good offense. Clearly representative Gerou knows she could face criminal and civil charges, censure or even expulsion for cause if Neville chooses to file charges. Her own additional extenuating circumstances of lying to the Sergeant at Arms and making false statements to the Speaker could weigh heavy against her if the Colorado House was occupied by honest and moral representatives. Unfortunately, the record of this session suggests the kind of behavior Gerou has demonstrated against a pro-gun activist will not only be acceptable, it will most likely be defended with taxpayers’ money.
This is a story that should be kept in the public as it plays out. If the Colorado “cartel” of liberal politicians protect the criminal behavior of one of their own, the resulting precedent could have serious ramifications for freedom of speech for everyone who opposes anything the ruling party wants to enact for any reason. Legislators would be establishing a whole new set of rules governing who gets access to “representatives.”
As Dudley Brown put it in his correspondence reporting the Gerou incident, “If you stand up for your (rights) you will be harassed, cursed at, charged with a crime, called before a … tribunal, ridiculed [publicly] in the press,” before finally being sanctioned by a kangaroo court in the legislative body ruling to keep out public opinion they choose to ignore.