Pinnacol Assurance has hired an attorney to figure out something to sue Paula Rhoads for, so Paula answers.

It seems if you say: "I don't have a gun, and never had a gun, don't know anyone with a gun to loan, don't have money to buy a gun, don't have a gun" then what they hear is: gun, gun, gun, gun, gun, instead of the plain English language meaning of: "This is not a threat."
So how could one discuss the important public issue of Colorado's gross mistreatment of the mentally disabled, and that the public is less safe when the occasional mentally disabled person chooses the wrong path?

The First Amendment normally covers a person's right to redress grievances to the government, but in this case, the "offending" language is straight from a pleading to the Colorado Supreme Court.

Paula is guessing that only certain people have a right to discuss matters impacting public safety repeatedly in Colorado. The news media occasionally repeats the concept of: "if we learn the details of these unfortunate shooting rampages, maybe we can prevent the next one."

So, if a person who lived through the absolute corruption of Colorado's worker's compensation system and administrative law judges ... should speak up about how such wanton abuse stresses people with serious injuries, some of whom occasionally take the wrong path, that firsthand experience is rejected entirely and reinterpreted as a threat despite the prefacing remarks: this is not a threat.

Paula considers this evidence that Colorado's worker's compensation system not only discriminates against injured workers with brain injuries, but also actively attempts to convert mental disabilities into criminal charges for the purpose of shifting costs to the public, who has NO VOTE OR VOICE to reject the "economic burden."

Yeah, the Colorado Worker's Compensation Act is for the "best interests of the public." Yeah, sure.