Next, she claimed that “Since you raised the issue of the park boundaries in your Municipal Court case, the City Attorney’s Office did provide all the information we had about the map dispute and the actual location of the park boundaries to the District Attorney’s Office prior to the trial on your County Court case.”  William responded by reiterating that the GIS department map presented by David during his municipal court trial, and to which the Municipal Court Judge herself pointed out coincided exactly with the red lines in Sergeant Giddings' red-and-green-line map, was the more correct map that should have been researched and compared against by her office.  William even explained that the red lines in Giddings' red-and-green-line map were, in fact, drawn from the very polygon file of the very map of Jefferson Street Park imported into the Parks Department from the GIS Department.

(ALSO, WHO CARES IF YOU ONCE ERRONEOUSLY RELIED ON WHAT TURNED OUT TO BE INCORRECT PARK BOUNDARIES – THAT NEVER JUSTIFIES PERPETUALLY MAINTAINING A WRONGFUL CONVICTION SHOULD YOU EVENTUALLY DISCOVER THE CORRECT PARK BOUNDARIES AFTER THE FACT.  AS IN, YOU ALWAYS HAVE AN ETHICAL OBLIGATION TO OVERTURN A WRONGFUL CONVICTION ONCE THE TRUTH COMES OUT THAT SOMEONE IS ACTUALLY INNOCENT!)

Next, she claimed that “If you felt the evidence presented by the District Attorney’s Office at your trial was incorrect or incomplete, that was an issue for you or your attorney to raise, challenge and/or present your own evidence on as part of your defense at trial, so that the judge or jury could decide the facts of the case.”  William responded by reiterating that he did present evidence of his own despite the burden of proof not being on him, and that he did challenge the state's evidence by raising the applicable issues, but that it didn't matter anyways because the prosecution was determined to wrongfully convict him anyways without presenting to the Court any real, actual, tangible, verifiable facts of their own and whereby they instead relied exclusively on Sergeant Giddings' wholly unsubstantiated and fully perjured hearsay testimony being accepted otherwise.

(ALSO, JUST BECAUSE YOU UNLAWFULLY DUPED A JURY INTO BUYING YOUR PSEUDO-EVIDENCE, DOESN'T MEAN THAT ACTUAL EVIDENCE CAN'T STILL BE INTRODUCED FROM OUTSIDE THE COURTROOM.  RULE 3.8(H) OF THE COLORADO BAR ASSOCIATION RULES OF PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT SPECIFICALLY MANDATES THAT WRONGFUL CONVICTIONS BE OVERTURNED WHEN A PROSECUTOR BECOMES AWARE OF “CLEAR AND CONVINCING” EVIDENCE OF A DEFENDANT'S INNOCENCE.  AS IN, EVERYTHING DOESN'T JUST GET “LOCKED UP” IN COURT, AND VAMOOSH, ALL YOUR INDEPENDENT ETHICAL OBLIGATIONS AS ATTORNEYS ARE SATISFIED THENCEFORWARD!)

Next, she claimed that “You had your right to a trial in your case, and you exercised  that right, as well as your right to an appeal. We do not know what role the map issue played in your conviction.  But If you failed to raise or effectively present your own evidence about the map and/or location of the right of way line at trial, or you did but the judge or jury did not find you credible or agree with you, that is not something Police Services or any other branch of the City government can assist you with at this point.”  William responded by reiterating that she should know better that the map issue was literally the sole reason why he got convicted in the first place – as he only stood within the green lines of the red-and-green-line map, but not the red lines, that morning of September 15, 2015.  Then he further explained that falsified evidence (like DNA evidence) is not appealable anyways, and that the only way to overturn a wrongful conviction stemming from the malicious introduction of such fabricated evidence is to literally police oneself, and otherwise reinvestigate and reintroduce evidence on upwards from the bottom, as well as hold police officers accountable with criminal charges like perjury should that be the reason for the wrongful conviction.

(ALSO, IT APPEARS THAT CARRIE DAGGETT IS SUFFERING FROM THE SAME DEFAMATION THAT OFFICER GOLDEN AND THE CITY EMPLOYEES DID ON APRIL 5, 2016 – THAT SOMEHOW THE DISPUTE AT HAND WAS MERELY OVER THE EXACT LOCATION OF THE RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE (TO INDEED BE DEBATED USING SURVEYS) VERSUS A LARGER, MORE OBVIOUS DISPUTE OF HOW THE PUBLISHED PARK BOUNDARIES WERE OUTRIGHT INCORRECTLY SOURCED IN THE FIRST PLACE.)

The entire email chain is actually 22 pages long, with quite a few more details and references to evidence (like even the very survey pin William found!) hashed out within it.  It is truly worth reading in its entirety, so as to get a complete picture of just how downright willfully blind the entire City Of Fort Collins has become to such a blatantly obvious and remarkably simple issue this whole park boundary thing actually is.  So please consider reading it!

Suffice it to say, and despite all the hard work spent by William in attempting to bridge such gaps in communication, Carrie Daggett eventually closed the book on him too, saying in her final email on the subject, “This is to inform you that I don’t consider further response to your emails productive and don’t believe that further discussion of the issues you’ve continued to discuss and describe is likely be fruitful.  Substantially all of the issues in your emails are matters to be resolved in court, if currently unresolved, and there is nothing further for the City to do with regard to them.  In light of this, I won’t be responding to each of your emails.  This should not be construed to mean that I agree with the characterizations of fact or conclusions or allegations in your messages, as we continue to disagree about many of these points.”