A decision on a plea in a misdemeanor charge against Montezuma-Cortez School District Superintendent Tom Burris was postponed Tuesday despite the judge’s comments that the case had been “languishing for quite some time.”
Burris was charged in August with failure to report an incident of possible child sexual abuse, a Class 2 misdemeanor. Colorado law requires certain professionals to report any possible child abuse or neglect to law enforcement. Such persons, known as mandatory reporters, include public or private school officials or employees.
According to the incident report by the Cortez Police Department, Burris was recorded in a phone conversation with the school district’s human resources director. In the recording, he reportedly stated that the parent of one student told him of an inappropriate relationship between the student and a teacher who was later dismissed.
Burris reportedly stated in the recording that he told the school board in an executive session about the allegation of an inappropriate relationship and stated that the parent made him swear not to say anything.
According to the incident report, police spoke with the student’s parents on July 22. The mother said she didn’t believe her child had actually had sex with the teacher but that the relationship between the two had gotten out of hand.
In county court Tuesday, current District Attorney Christian Hatfield and the attorney representing Burris. David Illingworth, gave various reasons for the fact that the case has been continued several times, but they agreed that it would be best to postpone the plea hearing until newly elected DA Jeremy Reed is installed.
A pretrial conference was then set for Jan. 21 at 10 a.m. Judge Ian MacLaren said that on that date the court will either accept a plea agreement or hear an actual plea and set a date for a trial.
The United States has filed a lawsuit against two men and other “unknown individuals” who they say illegally fenced Forest Service land in the Chicken Creek area near Mancos. The suit was filed Nov. 26 in U.S. District Court of Colorado.
Patrick Pipkin of Mancos and Bryan Hammon of Utah are accused of engaging in “unlawful fencing of the Hallar Deed area.” They and the additional unnamed individuals are part of a group calling itself the Free Land Holder Committee.
The complaint states that the United States has title to the 1,460 acres in question because it is part of the San Juan National Forest.
The suit says in October the group unlawfully erected barbed-wire fencing around much of the parcel, which is popular with recreationists and is also used for cattle-grazing.
“Defendants have acted to unlawfully obstruct free passage across a large area of this land with miles of fenceposts and barbed wire,” the complaint states. “In addition, Defendant Pipkin has posted notices signed by him and purporting to exercise authority on behalf of a group called the ‘Free Land Holder Committee’ to decide who may or may not use this public land. Defendants have neither permission from the United States nor any other legal right to do this.”
The area is called the Hallar Deed area, according to the complaint, because the lands were conveyed to the United States by warranty deed from Fred C. Hallar on March 24, 1927.
“The Hallar Deed Area left the public domain from 1896 to 1914 by patent to several private owners pursuant to the 1862 Homestead Act or the Land Act of 1820 through cash entry,” the lawsuit states. “These lands were acquired by Fred C. Hallar from their owners. Mr. Hallar then proposed an exchange of these lands for timber on NFS [National Forest Service] lands. The exchange was accepted, and Mr. Hallar conveyed the 1,460 acres comprising the Hallar Deed Area to the United States by warranty deed on March 24, 1927.”
One reason the Forest Service wanted the Hallar Deed Area was for watershed protection, the complaint says.
The area, which is more commonly known as Chicken Creek, is used “nearly every day” for recreation, the suit says.
“Recreational uses include, but are not limited to, trail running, hiking, bike riding, horseback riding, dog walking, hunting, skiing, and snowshoeing. Forest Service-designated trails within the Hallar Deed Area include the Lost Chicken, Blue Jay, Rush Trail South, and Rush Trail North trails, as well as a network of cross-country ski trails.”
Pipkin lives at the Blue Mountain Ranch, a 180-acre parcel that shares non-contiguous borders with the Hallar Deed Area on several sides, according to the complaint. He was a co-owner of the ranch, but the owners in 2023 reportedly transferred ownership to a Nevada trust bearing Pipkin’s initials.
On or about Oct. 5 of this year, Pipkin, Hammon, and the other defendants began constructing a new fence “that obstructed free passage or transit over or through the Hallar Deed Area,” the complaint states. “Defendants erected this fencing without any permission or agreement of the Forest Service.”
They reportedly removed vegetation and trees, installed metal fence posts and wooden and metal braces, and strung barbed wire. They put up several miles of fence line, the complaint says, but weren’t able to complete it.
On Oct. 5, Forest Service Law Enforcement Officer Michael Bugosh responded to a report about the fence being built, and found several vehicles and “approximately four adult males and one juvenile male near the newly constructed fence.”
“The leader of the group asserted that the lands belonged to the ‘Republic of the United States of America,’ which he claimed is a different entity than the United States, and that the United States had forever prohibited him and his associates from joining the United States,” the complaint states. “He asked Officer Bugosh whether the Forest Service had a ‘contract’ to conduct law enforcement activity in the area. He also said that he is a ‘habitant Free Land Holder of the Republic.’
The complaint says Pipkin told Bugosh that the Hallar deed granted the land not to the United States but to the “Republic of the United States of America” and he and the Free Land Holders are members of that.
Several other men that were reportedly with the Free Land Holders but didn’t identify themselves then arrived on the scene, and Bugosh left after consulting with his supervisor “due to the number of individuals present and their refusal to identify themselves.”
Pipkin has publicly said that the Free Land Holders are peaceful.
Hammon was later identified as having been among those present.
More fencing was built after that date, the complaint says.
On Oct. 9, Forest Service District Ranger Nicholas Mustoe reportedly met with Pipkin and other individuals at the Dolores Public Lands Office. Mustoe gave Pipkin a letter requesting that the fencing be removed, but Pipkiin reportedly refused the request.
On Oct. 10, a group of local residents upset about the fencing met in the area and began taking it down, leaving the wire coiled on the ground.
The complaint also mentions that Pipkin signed a “proclamation” that was then posted in Mancos on Oct. 9. It stated that the Free Land Holders owned the Hallar Deed Area and “appeared to contemplate that the Free Land Holders would erect more fencing and that they intended to stop respecting existing grazing rights on the land beginning in 2025.”
The proclamation stated that any existing cattle rights issued prior to any claims by the Free Land Holders “shall be honored until expiration of the annual year of 2024” but that fencing would have openings to allow cattle onto and out of the Free Land Holders’ claimed land.
On Oct. 18, according to the complaint, Pipkin signed and posted at the Mancos Post Office a “notice of claim” repeating that the Free Land Holder assert ownership of the land.
That notice set a deadline of Dec. 15, 2024, for “all those with an equal, previous or superior claim” to reply, saying otherwise, “be it this claim has been resolved forever.”
The suit is seeking a declaratory judgment declaring that “Defendants do not have the right to fence, obstruct, or claim exclusive rights to control the use of the Hallar Deed Area” as well as an injunction directing the defendants to immediately remove any remaining personal property they have placed on the area.
It also seeks a preliminary and permanent injunction prohibiting the defendants or anyone acting with them from installing any more such fencing or other personal property on the area.
The suit also seeks an award of costs.