Denver Planned Parenthood has front company; Weitz falsifies permit documents

Does this sound like Aurora deja vu?

On January 11, 2007, a corporation named Fuller 38 LLC bought the property at 7155 E. 38th Ave. in Denver from United Airlines for $1,350,000 according to this HomeInfoMaxReport.

Fuller 38 LLC was created two weeks before, on December 27, 2006. See deed to property and Fuller 38 incorporation papers here (pages 3-5).

On August 20, 2007, the Denver Post broke the story of Planned Parenthood of the Rocky Mountains' stealth purchase of the United Airlines Denver property with this map acknowledging the purchase was made "under a different name":

Denver%20PP%20location.jpg

So why as recently as October 3, 2007, did the Weitz Company, which I've previously documented is PP Denver's general contractor, apply for construct permits from the City of Denver listing United Airlines as the property owner? Click to see enlarged view:

I moved the date up so all would fit in one screen....

This was no fluke. Here is a permit document dated May 25, 2007. Click to see enlarged view; I moved the date up so all would fit on one screen:

See copies of permits in their entirety here (pages 1-2).

Planned Parenthood CEOs in both Denver and Chicago have stated they kept PP's name out of the construction process as long as possible to keep pro-lifers from interfering.

But does that give them license to lie on permit documents? And what about the right of subcontractors and workers to make the "choice" not to help build this abortion monstrosity?

CO Pro-life activist Keith Mason contacted two subcontractors last week working on the PP project, MTECH Mechanical Company and Haynes Mechanical Systems.

According to Mason, MTECH was told the name of the project was Fuller M.O.B. (medical office building). Haynes was told it was a United Airlines call center. Both stated their work was completed and they wished to avoid the controversy.

"We're not surprised that the abortion industry would be so deceptive," wrote Mason in an email. "We are surprised that The Weitz Company is putting their reputation and credibility on the line to collaborate with Planned Parenthood."

I'm not.

Planned Parenthood of Greater Iowa, where Weitz Company's parent company is located, listed great-grandsons of Weitz's founder, Fred (and wife Emily) and Steve (and wife Linda), as contributors in its 2005-06 annual report:

Denver%20pp%20-%20Weitz%20greatgrandson%20donors2.jpg

[HT for Weitz donations to PP: Iowa Right to Life; all other documentation: Keith Mason]


Comments:

You guys should shift from your pro-life activities and go into building code and permit compliance issues full-time.

You're really good at it.

Posted by: Hal at November 5, 2007 3:39 PM


LOL

Posted by: Bobby Bambino at November 5, 2007 3:40 PM


Sadly Hal we are much better with building code compliance than some builders and some of those with aspirations to build. Then again if you aren't a liar it is much easier to comply with laws, building code laws included.

Posted by: Tim at November 5, 2007 3:54 PM


There are many types of businesses that people would prefer not to have in thier area. They are legally entitled through the regulatory process to refuse permits for certain business activities within the legal framework.

Planned Parenthood does not disclose itself to the public or the regulators because it knows it will be rejected. It uses means both legal and illegal to subvert both the letter and the spirit of the law.

Cities would not have regulations for building and businesses if they had no interest nor authority in regulating building and businesses. The citizens have gone through legitimate government channels to enact and enforce community standards. Planned Parenthood and in this case Weitz are deliberately circumventing the regulations and ordinances.

It is contempt for democracy and comtempt for the right of communities to self government.

Posted by: hippie at November 5, 2007 4:20 PM


Hal, I agree with Bobby: LOL

Posted by: Jill Stanek at November 5, 2007 4:23 PM


might surprise you guys, but I don't think Planned Parenthood or anyone else should lie on an official permit application or other government form. I'm okay with trying to fly under the radar by legal means, including legal subsidiaries, but if they have crossed the line (Not yet saying they have) I would not defend that.

Posted by: Hal at November 5, 2007 4:27 PM


Hal, I'm not surprised. You're a fair guy. Always have been. You're almost all right... :)

Posted by: Jill Stanek at November 5, 2007 4:36 PM


I agree Hippie,
In my town, you wouldn't even get away with raising your roofline above 35 feet if you plan an addition to your home.

How can PP be so afraid of the pro-lifers interference? I mean afterall, if the majority of the citizens are Pro-choice PP would be welcomed with open arms anwhere they go.
They should be announcing their new facility like most businesses do. "PP coming to your neighborhood soon!" "Opening fall of 2007"

I would be willing to bet that the vast majority of the PC crowd would NEVER agree to have a PP facility in their own neighborhood.


Posted by: Sandy at November 5, 2007 5:06 PM


I don't know what you mean by "own neighborhood," but there is a planned parenthood facility a few miles from my house, and I'm quite happy it's there.


Posted by: Hal at November 5, 2007 5:13 PM


I second your whole comment sandy..If it's SO okay, then why not just be honest?? hmmm...

Posted by: Elizabeth at November 5, 2007 5:17 PM


"How can PP be so afraid of the pro-lifers interference? I mean afterall, if the majority of the citizens are Pro-choice PP would be welcomed with open arms anwhere they go. "

I believe Jill has addresses this issue in the past. Even pro-choicers may be hesitant to have a PP in their neighborhood. It could bring their property values down. Not to mention those that live in the neighborhood pro-choice or not, would have to deal with protesters (mainly anti-choicers). Screaming, chanting, singing, large crowds... thats something a lot of people don't want to deal with.

Posted by: JM at November 5, 2007 5:25 PM


Hal,

There's a few sleazy bars a few miles from my house and I couldn't care less either. There's a difference between a few miles and in "my neighborhood" and I definitely wouldn't want them down the road from my house.

Sandy, 5:06PM

Excellent point. Businesses routinely announce their plans to build, open, and expand. So what's the big secret?

Posted by: Mary at November 5, 2007 5:26 PM


Nonetheless, why lie. People are going to find out that its really a PP eventually. So whats the point of trying to hide it?

Posted by: JM at November 5, 2007 5:27 PM


Jill -

Is there a possibilty for a class action lawsuit?

Posted by: Tara at November 5, 2007 5:48 PM


See, the thing is that you always get the crazy ones. Even here in one of the most liberal states ever (i.e. MA), we also have some of the craziest conservatives. Some dressing as police officers and harassing those going into the clinic (even if they are not pregnant!), verbal/physical threats, refusal to move if asked to do so, and even violence.

Which is why the MA senate voted to increase abortion clinic buffer zones. If you guys could regulate your crazies, it probably wouldn't be AS big a deal. (Not blaming it all on your crazies, just seems that since they seem so outnumbered here, they may have gone more insane)

Posted by: Dan at November 5, 2007 6:25 PM


Tara, good question. I don't know. A colleague from DC emailed me a few days ago wanting copies of the lawsuits I mentioned in my column last week. He mentioned something about putting together evidence against PP from KS, IL, etc. Not sure what they're thinking.

Posted by: Jill Stanek at November 5, 2007 6:30 PM


Dan, I hope you don't think all MA prolifers are "crazies". According to a recent article in my local newspaper, the abortion clinic director admitted that there has never been an incident at the clinic I pray at. MA does have its share of "eccentrics", but I think it is the minority. You also have to remember that the media is pretty liberal too, so the reporting isn't exactly unbiased.

Posted by: Carrie at November 5, 2007 6:44 PM


Dan, I am not that upset about the buffer law. My main issue is that all MA prolifers are being lumped in a few people who act in ways they shouldn't. That story will not get out there because the majority of the media in MA has a liberal slant, exception being Boston Herald. As far as a "prolifer" dressing as a cop, I think your source is the Boston Globe. I believe they got their info from PP and NARAL. IT is a crime to impersonat a cop, so if it really happened why wasn't someone arrested?

Posted by: Carrie at November 5, 2007 6:50 PM


Maybe someone was arrested. I don't know, but I would like to see some unbiased proof. Just curious.

Posted by: Carrie at November 5, 2007 6:54 PM


Dan, I'd also like to see some recent stats that support the allegations against MA prolifers. How many arrests,etc? Let's compare that to the arrest rate of our politicans and then we can talk, lol.

Posted by: Carrie at November 5, 2007 7:04 PM


Carrie,

You make some excellent points. Where would these people get uniforms and badges in order to impersonate cops? I understand this is a very serious offense and I wonder if someone in the clinic reported these impersonators. Police officers should not be harassing anyone, and clinic personnel could most certainly have called in a complaint.
Also, is there equal outrage and concern when animal and environmental "crazies" engage in violence, including vandalism and arson? I understand actress Ricki Lake was involved in vandalizing a fur store and her only sentence was community service. Apparently vandalism for her cause is acceptable.

Posted by: Mary at November 5, 2007 7:09 PM


lol carrie, its well known that congress is composed of a bunch of criminals.

as for pro liofers, i dont claim its a majority, but they do make the most noise. As for the impersonation, I'm almost positive there was an arrest made, but I'll poke around for it ;).

You gotta admit though, that grim reaper is just creepy and unneeded.


Carrie, as for the "liberal slant". Every conservative across the nation seems to think each media channel has a liberal bias. Im sure it's true that some do, but I am in the middle of a book that talks about how conservatives have essentially taken over the media through language, it's an interesting read. But, we have no face to the "liberal bias" aside from maybe some satire shows such as Jon Stewart and Colbert. Yet, it's easy to identify conservative reporters such as O'Reilley (sorry if I butchered the spelling). Why is that? It should be easy to add a face to the voice of both the majority and the minority; how is it we'd only be able to recognize the voice of only the minority?

Posted by: Dan at November 5, 2007 7:15 PM


There is no justice, in all reality, when it comes down to the rich and celebrities. Both can get off easy more readily than anyone else. It's ridiculous.

Vandalism is never justifiable. Had it been anyone else, I'm sure (depending on the damage done) they would have gotten a much harsher sentence.

Posted by: Dan at November 5, 2007 7:16 PM


Dan, I was thinking of the Boston Globe when I was talking about a liberal slant. By the way, I am a liberal except for the prolife issue so I can smell the liberal bias at the Globe a mile away. I also recognize that the Boston Herald has a conservative slant, so I guess you could say that they balance each other out. I don't have a problem with both sides having a voice. What I do have a problem with is the broad brush stroke that the Globe paints prolifers. Grim Reaper, that's not something I would do. I would never dress as a cop, nor would I associate with someone who did.

Posted by: Carrie at November 5, 2007 7:23 PM


Dan,

True. But I believe she got off more lightly since it was vandalism for a cause that is, shall we say, more politically correct.

Posted by: Mary at November 5, 2007 7:24 PM


Are you Carrie? Hmm, thats a combo I havent seen before.

But do you vote based upon the pro-life issue? you'd be hard pressed to find a pro-life candidate here.

Of course, I don't read newspapers often anymore. I surf the net for my news for the most part.

Posted by: Dan at November 5, 2007 7:25 PM


Mary, I'm not so sure.

plenty of members of PETA have been arrested and incarcerated, as have the crazy pro-lifers. The difference is, I think, that the crazy pro-lifers tend to go farther than most of the animal activists. I mean, its a rarity to hear anyone being shot for supporting fur, but I think it is slightly less rare to hear of a doctor or clinic worker being shot for working at a clinic.

Posted by: Dan at November 5, 2007 7:28 PM


and I don't even know if my post actually adressed your question Mary, I'm dead tired. So if not, I'm sorry.

Posted by: Dan at November 5, 2007 7:28 PM


Yes, I am. Matters of life and death come first with me, so the abortion issue is my number concern. I don't really have much of a selection when voting, do I? I just hold my nose and do my best!!

Posted by: Carrie at November 5, 2007 7:32 PM


The sub-contractors have a right to know that they are working on a controversial project,something that may offend their moral sensibilities.

Posted by: Carrie at November 5, 2007 7:40 PM


Dan,

Anyone gunning down an abortionist is not a pro-lifer, but a murderer and have been vehemently condemned as such by legitimate pro-life leaders.
Quite frankly Dan, I think you would be in far greater danger working in the local post office than you would an abortion clinic.

Posted by: Mary at November 5, 2007 7:43 PM


Mary, thats why I put them in the category of crazies.


As for the second part, depends what you mean by safe. I hardly would call be heckled/harassed/shouted at a safe or healthy work environment.

Posted by: Dan at November 5, 2007 7:56 PM


I have been yelled at while working at garden center. Whenever you work around people, you are going to get yelled at at some point.

Posted by: Carrie at November 5, 2007 8:01 PM


very true carrie, but it isn't guaranteed on a daily basis as it is at an abortion clinic. Nor do people tend to picket your home.

Posted by: Dan at November 5, 2007 8:10 PM


Dan, you'd be surprised. I have heard people yell, "Your advice killed my plants." So, I was being called a killer, a plant killer that is.

Posted by: Carrie at November 5, 2007 8:35 PM


yeah, but somehow I think thats less bothersome than hearing people shout murderer, baby-killer, etc day in and day out. Not to mention the shouts about you going to hell, etc because of the protester's beliefs.

Posted by: Dan at November 5, 2007 8:40 PM


I have been at two clinics,one in MA and one in RI. I have never heard prolifers yelling baby-killer or murderer. I am not saying that it has never happened. What I am saying is that I think it is exaggerated. I am going by what I have seen and the prolifers I have met. I am off to watch Kids By The Dozen. (One more thing,my fellow prolifers have been screamed at plenty.)

Posted by: Carrie at November 5, 2007 9:04 PM


Dan,

What I was referring to was the gunning down of postal workers by beserk co-workers, which as I recall, did occur more than once. Also, attending high school can be a serious risk to your life. I would take being heckled, harassed and shouted at any day.
Try working in an emergency room too Dan. I've been threatened, sexually harassed, called an "expletive honkey" more than once, hit, and cursed at. All in a night's work. And I was working in one of the safer ERs in this country. Imagine the really dangerous ones.

Posted by: Mary at November 5, 2007 9:11 PM


It seems to me that given the declining number of abortion clinics across the country, PP is doing it's damndest to erect more and more of their megamills to have one in every state. The Aurora case was testing the waters for their underhanded entry...so they will continue to do this over and over again.

They can afford the best attorneys to get them out of it, and the judges who hear these cases are too afraid to fight them...lest they start a whole new war over abortion.

The next thing PP will start doing is putting a statue of Margaret Sanger in front of all their mills.

Posted by: Mike at November 5, 2007 9:35 PM


Anyone gunning down an abortionist is not a pro-lifer, but a murderer and have been vehemently condemned as such by legitimate pro-life leaders.

How about Cheryl Sullenger? She was convicted of conspiracy to bomb a clinic -- these days that would be referred to as terrorism -- in 1987 and did prison time for it, and yet now she is a spokesperson for Operation Rescue. If you want to be taken seriously as nonviolent, why do you have a convicted terrorist speaking for you?

Posted by: Ray at November 5, 2007 11:53 PM


Ray, she did her time, didn't she? Let it go.

Posted by: heather at November 6, 2007 7:28 AM


Ray, there is violence and terrorism in America's abortion clinics every day. Where is your outrage?

Posted by: heather at November 6, 2007 7:32 AM


Ray,

Cheryl Sullenger is a member of Operation Rescue and speaks for herself and her organization. She is not a pro-life leader.

Posted by: Mary at November 6, 2007 7:39 AM


Carrie, to address your post, Pro choicers have always claimed to be these "bastions of tolerance." When? When you leave abortion alone! They are outraged by domestic violence. They are outraged by child abuse. They are outraged by rape and murder. They should be outraged by all of the above. However, they aren't outraged by child killing. The absolute worst thing I could ever dream of.

Posted by: heather at November 6, 2007 7:43 AM


Mary, exactly!

Posted by: Carrie at November 6, 2007 8:33 AM


Heather, so true.

Posted by: Carrie at November 6, 2007 8:45 AM


Heather, I agree with you. I find it amazing that they are against all this violence including capital punishment, yet are quick to apply capital punishment on innocent unborn children. Besides when did being pregnant become a crisis?

Posted by: Tara at November 6, 2007 8:47 AM


Carrie and Tara, I always find it amusing that the minute you mention one iota of corruption about the abortion industry, watch how most pro choicers change the subject. It happens often. They begin discussing corrupt priests and dentists.

Posted by: heather at November 6, 2007 9:02 AM


Besides when did being pregnant become a crisis?

Here I would point out that it is your own deception centers, the "Crisis Pregnancy Centers" that call pregnancy a crisis, not PP or pro-choicers. So yes, Tara, since when did pregnancy become a crisis?

Posted by: Ray at November 6, 2007 9:17 AM


Ray,

A pregnancy is a crisis when someone could die because of it (the baby or the mother). That's why CPC's exist- if they didn't, babies would die.

Posted by: Jacqueline at November 6, 2007 10:39 AM


Ray,

The majority of pregnancies are not life threating. They are a small percentage. In cases where the life of the mother is in jeapordy you can do a c-section in 3 minutes compared to 2 days by abortion. But both the lives of the mother and the baby should protected.

My point was - the 95% of abortions are not done bc of the life of the mother. They are done bc it interfers with career, social life, boyfriend, school or embarrasment. These are not good enough reasons to abort.

There is always a moment of time when one finds out they're pregnant of oh crap. I;m going to be responsible for another human being. I haven't met anyone who didn't feel that. But once the initial shock is over, its fine. That's why statistics show that over 70% of women who had abortions said, if they had someone who would have walk down that road with them, they would NEVER have chosen abortion, but they felt alone and had no choice.

This is why we have CPCs so that a girl or woman never feels alone, and has people who are willing to walk down the road to motherhood with her.

Posted by: Tara at November 6, 2007 10:53 AM


Tara,

Very well put. Also, with modern technology and medical care where it is today, it rarely comes down to the life of the mother versus that of the child. Even prior to Roe v Wade, hospitals could legally do whatever was necessary to save a mother's life or preserve her health and still can. That includes abortion, which may sadly be necessary on the rare occasion. Roe was never necessary to protect a woman's life or health.
It is not at all unusual for a woman, even when the pregnancy is planned and the woman is in the best of circumstances, to be overwhelmed, apprehensive, question whether she is ready, or to simply not want to be pregnant after all. Imagine the woman not in the best of circumstances or who did not plan the pregnancy. Small wonder a woman may panic or simply see no way out, as well as be vulnerable to "support" from people anxious to see her on the abortion table.

Posted by: Mary at November 6, 2007 11:09 AM


Mary,

I was in Pittsburg recently and had the chance to pray outside PP in downtown Pittsburgh during the 40 Days for Life. While I was there I was talking to a woman who told me that earlier in the week, she watched 2 girls go in and about 20 minutes later one of the girls ran out crying telling them that the room was full of girls crying and sobbing. The women there told her to go back and get her friend and she said she couldn't because they took her back and told her it was to late to change her mind.

This is so wrong. No girl should feel pressured to go through with an abortion if she has changed her mind. And they called PLer's forceful and intimidating.

Posted by: Tara at November 6, 2007 11:41 AM


Tara, I have heard this time and time again. My post abortive pals have all said the same types of things. One woman said "We were like cattle." Another woman said, "It was like an assembly line."...I've never heard the same remarks about any other types of surgery.

Posted by: heather at November 6, 2007 12:11 PM


Heather, so much for PP being compassionate. They are about the $$$$$$. That's it. How many can we get in during the day. It's sick.

Posted by: Tara at November 6, 2007 2:53 PM


Ray,

Abortion is a deliberate, savage act of violence that kills a helpless, innocent baby. It is more reasonable for Sullenger to be taken seriously as nonviolent in trying to prevent such savagery than for you to support it and expect the highground to criticize Sullenger, et al. I have problems with the use of force as the best way to fight abortion, but for anyone who supports legalized abortion to criticize anyone else for being "violent", "a terrorist", etc. is ludicrous...you know, the pot and the kettle.

Oh, and for a more realistic overall perspective on abortion vs. pro-life violence, check out abortionviolence.com. I'm sure you'll find it very enlightening...

Tara,

PP is so NOT about free choice, just about coercing, deceiving, and manipulating people into going along with THEIR choice. I remember being outside a PP deathmill once and a young mother came out, probably just to get something out of her car. Two PP goons followed her out, each of them took her by an arm, and they literally strongarmed/dragged their quarry back into their lair. And that girl had a distinct "baby bump", so she had to be at least 5 months along, even though that PP mill advertises that they don't do abortions past 13 weeks. But will they lie for money? Dunno, do bluebirds fly? The further along, of course, the more dangerous for the mother, but the more lucrative for the profiteers an abortion is; NOW I WONDER which will rank the highest on PP's scale of priorities???!!!........

Posted by: jtm at November 6, 2007 3:48 PM


jtm, a most excellent post!

Posted by: heather at November 6, 2007 3:55 PM


jtm -

I'm Pro-life. I'm not sure why you're jumping all over me? I know that PP is not about free choice. I am out in front of Aurora PP everyday. It breaks my heart watching those girls go in there.

Posted by: Tara at November 6, 2007 4:30 PM


Tara, oops. I didn't see that part. I thought jtm was agreeing with you.

Posted by: heather at November 6, 2007 4:42 PM


Heather - that's ok. I'm used to people yelling at me now. I get it everyday at outside PP. I'm called a multitude of 4 letter words. I must be getting to them if they have to stop and swear at me:)

Posted by: Tara at November 6, 2007 4:51 PM


Tara, stick around. You ain't seen nothin yet! LOL!

Posted by: heather at November 6, 2007 4:55 PM


Heather - I have no intention of going anywhere. I will be outside PP everday, and will continue to be a witness for those babies who have no voice. So swear on:) After today being outside, it's time to buy those hand and feet warmers that you put in your boots and gloves. It was really cold!!! But makes no difference. Those of us out there don't care what the temperature is!

Posted by: Tara at November 6, 2007 5:01 PM


Tara, I admire you!

Posted by: heather at November 6, 2007 5:09 PM


Tara,

Heather had it right the first time; I meant to affirm your position, not jump on you!

Shalom!

Posted by: jtm at November 6, 2007 8:35 PM


jtm - it's okay. I just got confused by how the post was written. So peace be with you also.

Posted by: Tara at November 6, 2007 9:07 PM


Jill,

Did you make sure that listing UAL as the owner was not an error by City of Denver? When you apply for a permit in Denver the owner of the property is set by Denver not the person getting the permit. Have you verified that Weitz misled Denver? If it is true, that is very wrong.

Posted by: Curious at November 7, 2007 12:02 PM


Jill,

Checked with City of Denver. The Permit showing UAL was their error. Your article saying that Weitz Falsified Documents is in error. You should correct your statement so you are not in error. You have made it clear that you don't care for people misrepresenting the truth.

Posted by: Curious at November 9, 2007 9:49 AM


Do you care that your story's based on lies and that the only reason United's name is on the permit is because Denver's antique computer system screwed up?

Will you be apolgizing?

Posted by: Anonymous at November 9, 2007 8:23 PM


Here's a win-win suggestion: Let's all agitate for code changes in our city and county ordinances to require that all building permits (and related documentation) must include not only the name of the company filing the forms but the name under which the company will be doing business. Any use of the building by another company name without properly filed forms of either name change or sale would then be actionable under ordinance. This would prevent PP from doing this again (just like in Aurora IL!) and it would also prevent any group from building a conference center and then plunking a cross on top and calling it a church (or whatever other symbol/usage combination you care to come up with).

Posted by: Cynthia at November 9, 2007 9:08 PM