Liu's Latest Lies, Feb 2024

February, 27, 2024

Once again, Ivy Liu’s legal attack has been defeated. El Paso County Judge David Gilbert granted the District 49 defendants a full dismissal before Liu’s case alleging defamation even proceeded to evidentiary hearings or a jury trial. 

Although the legal victory is gratifying, and vindicates the action of the board to censure Liu and call for her resignation, it is still disappointing when illegitimate lawsuits (lawfare) create a distraction from our core mission. Allowing assertions, claims and outright lies to go unchecked, is damaging to both morale and our true image. With the inner ring of our cultural compass as our guide, we have assembled a new entry for 49 Answers, a resource that will speak directly to claims, assertions and distortions about D49 – by providing clear, accurate and transparent information that we hold firmly against the willful attacks we hear. 

We invite you to take a look at the truth supported by facts and evidence… When others throw shade, we’ll shed light with 49 Answers.

Along with her most recent legal defeat, former board member Ivy Liu is retaliating against D49 leaders with a series of deceptive accusations posted across multiple platforms, websites, and mailed directly to many community groups. As is our practice at 49 Answers, we will quote the lies directly, correct all distortions, and provide links to direct evidence, so you can judge for yourself.

Liu has repeatedly accused a group of leaders she calls “The Mob,” “Gestapo,” and “The Gang of Five” of defamation and harassment. In her attacks leveled against members of the board, Liu also accuses district staff of perjury, criminal censorship, and various other offenses. 

In multiple versions of her post, Liu made the following false claims:

CLAIM 1

Liu’s first deceptive claim smears D49’s general counsel Brad Miller as incompetent in the following passage:

Why are we giving [Miller] a raise when under his legal counsel, D49 has violated statutes and lost literally millions in lawsuits, including a $2.5 million judgment [sic] for a racial discrimination case [7]?

• 49 Answers -  In this accusation, Liu accomplishes the rare triple-play of deception. First, she falsely claims that D49 lost a discrimination case resulting in a $2.5 million judgment. The case she cites is Harris vs. CHSAA, and she links to the public judgment here (click to view) (alt?) which we have also posted at our website (click to view) in case Liu deletes her link. That document clearly shows that D49 was not subject to a $2.5 million judgment because D49 is not mentioned as a defendant. The district and its employees were dismissed as plaintiffs in 2019. (See Denver Post article here and the stipulated motion to dismiss with prejudice here). Secondly, the district’s lawyer for the initial proceedings leading to dismissal was not Brad Miller, it was Jennifer Harpole, of the Littler Law Group. Finally, the judgment did not make any finding of racial discrimination by D49 or any district employee. Since Liu was on the board at the time this verdict was published, she is well aware of which lawyer was involved, and she knows that D49 was not found liable and did not have to pay $2.5 million. Liu is lying about the case in a transparent attempt to smear the district and Mr. Miller.

CLAIM 2 

Liu’s second deceptive claim also contains multiple lies in one passage:

The District is committing statute violations and paying costly judgments that are not disclosed to the public. The district's insurance rates have tripled since 2017-18 to a $2.1 million premium, all at the expense of taxpayer dollars.

• 49 Answers - No court has found D49 in violation of statute, and the blatant claim about costly judgments is disproven in item #1 above. Liu’s claim that legal losses have led to insurance rates tripling is a complete fabrication. The district's property insurance rates have indeed risen, caused largely by major hail damage in Colorado in 2017, (see insurance industry analysis here) as well as general inflation pressure. Many property and homeowners have seen massive increases in insurance premiums, and D49 is no exception. But those increases have absolutely zero to do with court cases we didn’t lose or statutes that we didn’t violate. Once again, Liu knows the truth because she was on the board and received a briefing about rising insurance costs related to major claims for hail damage. She knows her accusation is a fabrication, but her purpose is not to promote truth. Her purpose is to harm those she considers her enemies.

CLAIM 3

Liu’s third deceptive claim is that the board is ignoring academics:

The last time the board meeting talked about academics (math only) was six months ago. You can hardly tell D49 is an EDUCATION entity.

• 49 Answers - Liu made this claim in February 2024, so it is presumably a reference to the period from August, 2023 through January 2024. During that time period, the board agenda is replete with content related to academic performance, including school performance reports, accreditation decisions, monthly dashboard reports from the superintendent that include academic data, and the following special topic presentations, some of which Liu witnessed in person when she was still on the board. The following items link directly to the portions of the board meeting videos addressing academic topics.

January 11, 2024: Zone presentation Includes Academic Measures at each zone

October 25, 2023: Primary Literacy Performance Report Data at District Level for 23/24

                              Board Discussion on requirements for  Colorado State standards

September 27, 2023: Unified School/ District Improvement Plan- UIP for D49

September 14, 2023: Special Education Advisory Committee Update

August 23, 2023: Assessment Update

August 10, 2023: Star End-of-Year Presentation (Star 360 Assessment Report)

CLAIM 4 

Liu’s fourth deceptive claim is that Peter Hilts criticized the national motto:

Peter Hilts called our National Motto “outdated” and “divisive."

• 49 Answers - In a discussion about whether or not to adopt a resolution encouraging posting of the national motto “In God We Trust,” Mr. Hilts made the following statement about the “Freedom Shrine” displays of historical documents (which do not include the national motto.)

Video Available Here

While I do appreciate the freedom Shrine that we have in some of our high schools, I'm also honest enough to know that some of those displays are a little dated. Some of them are hard to read because they were written in longhand—like the instrument of surrender at the end of World War II. And so I wonder if maybe this is an opportunity to work with both educational professionals, also our student leaders and also our community groups that would have a great interest in helping us develop plain text, readable versions of these documents; to show where all of our values come from.

Mr. Hilts continued to advocate for a broad approach to historical context, rather than a narrow focus on a single motto:

…a more expansive approach to this topic I think would be much more likely to generate… it would be more unifying whereas a narrow focus on “In God We Trust” is likely to bring some division, and I'm very interested in unifying around things that should naturally unify us which includes the context, the legacy, the speeches, and I appreciate the diversity of perspective shared tonight.

Mr. Hilts observed that the current displays are dated (they are) and that a narrow focus on the national motto would be divisive (it has already been divisive in board comments and public comment). Liu’s distortion of Hilts’ comments is an intentional misrepresentation. Liu knows her accusation is false because she has access to the same video we posted above, but her purpose is not to tell the truth. Her purpose is to harm those she considers her enemies.

 

We do not intend to refute every misstatement Liu makes, that would take too long and be a poor use of time. Plus, several of her accusations about academics, SEL, and CRT have already been thoroughly debunked and refuted in previous answers. However, when she recruits others to amplify her lies and cross-posts her defamatory screed across the community, it is responsible to point out her blatant lies and invite our community to consider her credibility accordingly. Those who repeat misinformation from a source who is known to mislead and fabricate, bear responsibility for becoming agents of deception. We are hopeful that the stakeholders who have amplified Liu’s latest lies will reconsider whether her pattern of mistruths and fabrications deserves their support and collaboration.