When it was reported that District Attorney Mark Hurlbert dismissed felony charges against a rich banker who slammed into a bicyclist, I wondered if Hurlbert had accepted a bribe. Hurlbert has high political aspirations, and recently ran for State Senator. Perhaps the rich banker promised generous campaign contributions in exchange for dismissing felony charges? It seems that Hurlbert must be accepting bribes. No other explanation makes sense.
Although I haven't seen any envelopes with cash, I have seen how Hurlbert treated other Colorado criminal cases. Two women lost their jobs after being charged with felonies for switching race cards at a race:
DA Mark Hurlbert filed felony criminal-impersonation charges against two veteran Vail, Colorado, mountain bike racers, Wendy Lyall and Katie Brazelton, after an injured Brazelton, 40, gave her registration materials and entry number to her friend, Lyall, 36, so she could race
Does that seem like a serious crime to you? Why is this even a criminal matter for a prosecutor rather than a civil matter for race organizers? Yet Hurlbert treated the case as a serious matter. He didn't care if the women lost their jobs. He charged them with felonies. Serious business.
Why then has he allowed a banker who committed a violent crime to avoid a felony charge? He claims it's because the banker should keep his job. And yet Hurlbert cost two women who switched a race card their jobs. What is going on?
When a Morgan Stanley banker nearly kills a bicyclist, Hurlbert tells the victim to screw off:
EAGLE, Colorado — A financial manager for wealthy clients will not face felony charges for a hit-and-run because it could jeopardize his job, prosecutors said Thursday.
Martin Joel Erzinger, 52, faces two misdemeanor traffic charges stemming from a July 3 incident when he allegedly hit bicyclist Dr. Steven Milo from behind then sped away, according to court documents.
Milo and his attorney, Harold Haddon, are livid about the prosecution's decision to drop the felony charge. They filed their objection Wednesday afternoon, the day after prosecutors notified Haddon's office by fax of their decision.
Perhaps there is an alternative explanation for the disparate treatment? I cannot think of one. Right now thinking people must infer that Hurlbert is accepting bribes.
Moreover, we can infer that a bribe has been offered given Hurlbert's fraudulent arguments. Hurlbert claims that his motives are pure:
“The money has never been a priority for them. It is for us,” Hurlbert said. “Justice in this case includes restitution and the ability to pay it.”
That is a lie, because restitution goes to the victim - in this case, the bicyclist. That is a lie, because the banker has substantial assets, and can pay a restitution order by tapping into savings. The victim, moreover, doesn't care about restitution:
Milo wrote in a letter to District Attorney Mark Hurlbert that the case “has always been about responsibility, not money.”
“Mr. Erzinger struck me, fled and left me for dead on the highway,” Milo wrote. “Neither his financial prominence nor my financial situation should be factors in your prosecution of this case.”
How can Hurlbert claim that a sociopathic banker must keep his job in order to pay restitution to the victim, when the victim himself doesn't care about that restitution? That argument is clearly fraudulent. Hurlbert is lying.
We hope that the State Bar of Colorado will open an investigation. We also hope that voters will recall the corrupt Hurlbert from office.