You Still Here

[{"type":"text","text":"How USAF pilots find out what aircraft they will fly....."}]

You still here 10 16 24

Cowboy State Daily is Wyoming’s largest newspaper with Wyoming’s most experienced journalists. 

<title>You Still Here? Wednesday, October 16, 2024 | Cowboy State Daily</title>

How USAF pilots find out what aircraft they will fly.....

You Still Here? Wednesday, October 16, 2024

 How USAF pilots find out what aircraft they will fly.....

Headshot of Cowboy State Daily's business and tourism reporter, Renée Jean

Renée Jean

Government & Politics

Executive

Ward 1 Cheyenne City Councilman Larry Wolfe is calling for a dramatic reset in the city’s negotiations with Microsoft when it comes to a proposed 3,459-acre annexation that is roughly one-fifth the current size of Cheyenne.

During a Public Services Committee meeting Monday, Wolfe urged the committee to recommend postponing or denying annexation of the property, along with accompanying measures that change the city’s land-use map and change the property’s zoning from agriculture to business park. 

That would give Cheyenne time to negotiate a community benefits agreement with Microsoft that Wolfe proposed should be worth at least $50 million. 

Despite Wolfe’s push, the PSC voted 2-1 to recommend annexation of the 3,500-acre property to the full council, along with zoning changes and future land-use map changes. Councilman Pete Laybourn cast the lone “no” vote on these measures, which will be before the Cheyenne City Council at its next meeting June 22.

According to Wolfe’s proposal, which was sent to PSC members ahead of the meeting, the $50 million would be payable over the next five years in annual installments of $10 million, commencing July 1, 2027, and continuing through July 1, 2031. 

The funds would be for permanent improvements to the city. While the city would consult with Microsoft on the use of the funds, final decisions would be entirely up to the city.

The money could be accumulated for investment on larger, more expensive projects, but would have to be spent by July 1, 2036.

The community benefits agreement would also obligate Microsoft to use state-of-the-art technology to minimize water use and minimize or eliminate emissions, as well as set contractual guardrails on about 40 different items, including traffic, noise, wildlife, social and economic impacts, including affordable housing.

Wolfe, who is not a PSC member, said he opposed the annexation because the company’s development timeline is so far into the future it amounts to today’s city council trying to obligate a future city council, even though the same people might not be on it.

“Things change,” he said. “We don’t know, and we shouldn’t be arrogant enough to think that we know what this is going to look like 10 years from now. And we ought to defer to the city council that’s … sitting in your chairs 10 years from now, to make the annexation decision.”

Wolfe also pushed back on the idea that annexation should be considered separate from the land’s future use.

“Annexation is the battle,” he said. “It’s all one and the same, because, as the chairwoman acknowledged, it’s the commitment of resources of the city. It’s the commitment of water and sewer resources. So this is where … the battle should be fought.”

Ward 3 Councilman Mark Moody, who is not a member of the PSC either, also spoke during the 4.5-hour session. He focused on property rights, saying council members should also be mindful of the rights of surrounding property owners as far as what gets developed.

“When constituents talk to me, they really have said we need to slow down,” Moody said. “That’s from — a lot of them are not here, a lot of them are working. We have to look at that aspect there.”

Moody also suggested the gold mine opening west of town escaped protest because it went through the state’s industrial siting process. 

[{"type":"text","marks":[{"type":"textStyle"},{"type":"bold"}],"text":"More Analysis Needed"}]

Meanwhile, Councilman Pete Laybourn, who cast the lone dissenting vote, acknowledged that data centers have helped Cheyenne’s business parks and have helped the city thrive for the past 25 years.

The property owners, too, are “incredibly distinguished members of our community who have done an awful lot for us,” he added.

Cheyenne has only had one other annexation of comparable size: the Sweetgrass annexation. That annexation, Laybourn noted, came with an extensive analysis of all the issues involved in bringing a major area into the city. 

“It’s very interesting,” he said. “Same property owner, same city of Cheyenne agreement, but (this time) we’re not hearing anything like that. Where are the roads going to go? What are the arrangements that are going to be made? And it’s been pointed out a few minutes ago here that we’re making a decision that’s going to be way off in the future.”

The development arc being far into the future would be OK, Laybourn suggested, if more detail was available about the property’s future.

“Where are the conditions that we need to put onto an annexation agreement, so that it’s well understood going into the future?” he said. “I know we’re going to get to the questions of the planning commission that I attended here not too long ago for five hours, and when we get to that we can take a look at why the planning commission felt so strongly that there are questions here they didn’t get answers to and that they wanted to.”

[{"type":"text","marks":[{"type":"textStyle"},{"type":"bold"}],"text":"Too Many Missing Details"}]

The area in question has unique considerations, Laybourn added, because it’s part residential, part agricultural, part in the county, and part in the city.

“We have all seen, if you’re driving out South Greeley Highway, a lot of activity going on in the county that isn’t directly involved in this annexation,” he said. “But it is nearby, so I want to caution us that we don’t have to hurry with this. We need to really think about this.”

The conditions of an annexation, spelled out in state law, include a requirement that the action is beneficial for the health, safety and welfare of people residing in the area. 

“Other people might interpret it one way,” he said. “I interpret that as being a broad call to us to really think about what we’re doing and the effect that it’s going to have on our city.”

Laybourn also signaled that he’s receptive to Wolfe’s idea, saying, “I just heard some very sensible language proposed by my fellow councilman from Ward One in regard to the economics of this situation, because what we’re dealing with is unprecedented and almost unimaginable corporate wealth.”

Laybourn added that an evaluation of whether the annexation is good for Cheyenne has to include a broader look at all of the factors involved.

“Our governor suggests in his recent executive order, ‘whereas Wyoming’s local towns and city councils and county commissioners have the power to protect community interests and further mitigate siting and nuisance issues that may arise from large industrial development',” Laybourn said. “These are the reasons that I’m going to be voting ‘no’ today. It’s a choice that I think we have to carefully consider.”

A forceful defense of property-owner rights came from Cindy Delancey, a large landowner in Laramie County who said she’s one of the owners involved in the 3,500-acre land deal with Microsoft.

Delancey said she hadn’t planned to speak, but felt compelled after hearing people argue that agricultural land should be preserved at all costs. The framing ignores the economic realities she and her family face.

“My family, we have our ranch for sale,” she said. “Agriculture is hard. We can’t get fertilizer. Cattle prices are high, but so is everything else … everything is expensive.”

Landowners need flexibility to partner with projects or sell if it makes sense for their operations, she said.

“Private property rights used to matter to us in this state,” she said. “We’re not serfs. We’re not bound to the land like it’s the 14th century. If we feel as large landowners that we need to make decisions for our operations, we should be able to do that.”

Many of the same objections to data centers that have been raised in previous meetings surrounding the Microsoft land deal were made again.

Residents and speakers such as Jana Tolman and Donna Presto warned that Cheyenne is “always in a drought” and questioned whether the city truly understands long-term water impacts. 

One speaker cited a neighbor whose rural well had to be deepened from 600 to 900 feet — at a cost of $120,000 — due to declining groundwater. They suggested draining local aquifers to serve industrial growth would be irresponsible.

Microsoft officials pushed back on that narrative, saying all of their new data centers will use recirculating cooling systems, which operate a little like a car’s radiator system, recirculating a mixture of water and propylene glycol, a food-grade, non-toxic coolant.

Harmony Meadows resident Heather Madrid, meanwhile, asked how it could be possible to find that annexing the land is beneficial to the city when Microsoft has no plan laid out for the parcel.

“Microsoft cannot tell this community or the council how many buildings there will be and therefore they cannot predict water usage,” she said. “They cannot predict how the grid will be impacted, and how wildlife in the ecosystem will be protected without having a plan. It is impossible to prove that this annexation is protecting the health, safety, and welfare of the community, which is not a simple suggestion. It’s one of the criteria required by law when considering annexation.”

Annexing the property now amounts to a blank check with zero guarantees, she said. 

“It’s been stated that Microsoft has been a good community partner, but corporate philanthropy does not excuse them from following the same rules and regulations as other companies,” she said. “It does not replace proper planning. If the developer cannot provide concrete numbers or even a good guess on infrastructure strain, they are not ready to be annexed. Please recommend a ‘no’ vote, or at the very least, a postponement until a complete plan is presented.”

While critics warned of water shortages, spiking electricity rates, and noise problems, a steady stream of supporters talked about how data center projects have changed their lives and the lives of their families.

One electrician said work on the west-side campus allowed him to move back to Cheyenne after years of chasing construction jobs around the region, while others described friends who went from low-end retail and food-service jobs into six-figure careers. 

“The thing I value the most about this opportunity is that it allows me to stay local,” Cheyenne resident Micah Snyder said. “I’m happy to be home every night. My wife really appreciates that. And, as a single-income household, she’s still able to stay home and raise our kids on the income from this opportunity.”

David Zook, meanwhile, came to Cheyenne from the East Coast in 2013 to help build the city’s first data center.

“I’ll be honest. Before accepting the job, I couldn’t have pointed to Cheyenne on a map,” he said. "But I took a chance, drove West, and it changed the entire trajectory of my life.”

Every new data center has a human side, he added.

“Behind every new building, every expansion, every project, there are people like me, whose lives and families are shaped by the opportunities created here,” he said. “When I moved to Cheyenne, I was a single guy starting a new chapter. In 2015, I met my wife and a year ago yesterday, we welcomed our daughter into the world.”

The family bought a home in Cheyenne in 2018. Now, this July, they’ll move into a bigger home, with more space for their growing family. 

“Cheyenne isn’t just where I work, it’s where I’ve chosen to put down roots,” he said. “I really love it here. I’ve watched Microsoft grow in this region, and I’m proud of the work we do.”

While there have been many claims that data centers don’t employ many people, they have ripple effects throughout the economy that support hundreds of jobs, Amanda August told the PSC.

“Every week, our campuses host over 267 full-time Microsoft employees,” she said. “We have 245 security and vendor-critical environment employees who show up every day and are dedicated to our sites alone. Then we have 430 to 750-plus vendors every week who show up to our data centers across Cheyenne alone. These are long-term. They’re not construction. These are jobs that bring steady economic activity into the city.”

Cheyenne city council 3 6 15 26

<title>Cheyenne Committee Backs Microsoft Annexation While Councilman Pushes $50M Deal | Cowboy State Daily</title>

Despite calls to delay or deny a 3,500-acre annexation for Microsoft data centers, Cheyenne’s Public Services Committee narrowly recommended approval Monday. A councilman urged them to postpone to give the city time to negotiate a $50 million agreement.

Cheyenne Committee Backs Microsoft Annexation While Councilman Pushes $50M Deal

Kerry Drake

Wyoming Life

Around Wyoming

Cheyenne’s new vehicle noise ordinance was unanimously passed by the City Council to stop obnoxious motorists who drive their loud cars, trucks and motorcycles late at night, disrupting people’s sleep.

 soon after it went on the books in late September was auto mechanic Geno Stecks, who was driving a fairly unassuming 2006 Subaru with a modified muffler. 

It also wasn’t in the middle of the night or in a residential section of the capital city. Stecks said it was on a main thoroughfare at the intersection of East Lincolnway and Hugur Avenue at 2:45 in the afternoon.

“Communists. Control freaks!” is how Stecks responded when asked what he thought about the City Council members who approved the ordinance after many people opposed it during public testimony at three council meetings.

[{"type":"text","marks":[{"type":"textStyle"},{"type":"bold"}],"text":"He Wasn’t Speeding"}]

Stecks was on the job when he got busted, transporting auto parts for FM Automotive when he heard the police siren.

He told the officer that he didn’t think he’d been speeding, but was informed the stop was made because of excessive noise.

This how the encounter went, according to Stecks:

“I couldn’t hear my radio for your exhaust,” the officer told him.

“I said, ‘Turn your volume knob up,’” Stecks said he replied. "I couldn’t hear my exhaust because of my radio, because I’ve got a kick-ass stereo in it.”

In hindsight, Stecks said he’s since thought of some other creative responses.

“I wish I had told him, ‘What are you going to tell the Hells Angels if they come roaring through town? Are you going to pull them over and cite them for having too loud exhaust? You probably wouldn’t live through it,’” said the bearded Stecks, wearing a T-shirt that depicted a full mug with the word “Beer – It’s What’s for Dinner.”

[{"type":"text","marks":[{"type":"textStyle"},{"type":"bold"}],"text":"Too Few Tickets"}]

A spokesperson for the Cheyenne Police Department said that after Stecks broke the ice as the first to be ticketed for driving too loudly, 43 other motorists were given noise violation citations in 2025, and 33 more so far this year.

Even those are way too few, said a council member who supported the noise ordinance.

“They should be writing 300 or 400,” said City Council Vice President Pete Laybourn. “The problem is immense, and I’m very disappointed with how it’s being handled. The ordinance hasn’t been effective at all.”

Laybourn said residents are purposely modifying their mufflers and making noise in all parts of the city, at all hours day and night, and also deliberately speeding.

“They tried to disrupt Friday Night at the Plaza last week, driving up Capitol (Avenue) and backfiring,” he said. “It was really, really bad.”

City Council President Tom Segrave was one of several councilmen who brought up the issue last summer because ​he was getting so many complaints from Cheyenne residents about excessive noise from motorists.

“I live off Yellowstone Road, and I can tell you it’s quite a sight to see a pack of people riding these loud little motorcycles down Yellowstone at night, often up until 1 a.m., popping wheelies,” Segrave said.

[{"type":"text","marks":[{"type":"bold"}],"text":"Too Early To Tell"}]

He said it’s too early to know if the ordinance is making a difference. 

Segrave said he hasn’t been receiving complaints, but figures that will change during the summer when more people have their windows open.

The main difference between the new ordinance and a previous one is that it allows a police officer to use his or her judgment about whether a vehicle is too loud. 

The former regulation required a meter to be used at least 25 feet away, which Segrave said made it unenforceable.

Stecks said he paid the $100 fine, which would be increased to $200 if he breaks the ordinance again within a year. 

Possible jail time is on the books for a third offense, plus a $500 fine, but City Attorney John Brodie told Cowboy State Daily when the ordinance was passed last year that it’s 

“If anything, jail is maybe an imposed part of the sentence that would then be suspended,” he said.

“People told me, ‘You could have fought this,’” Steck said. “I said I’d be in worse trouble because I would have ended up in jail after I told the judge and the court how crooked they are. 

"There would have been F-bombs involved. When you’re a mechanic, F-bombs are the terminology of the trade.”

The ordinance requires all vehicles driven within city limits to be equipped with a muffler. It prohibits vehicles that bypass or cut out their mufflers to be louder and those that create “excessive smoke.”

Stecks said he agrees with the idea that people who drive small motorcycles known as “crotch rockets” up and down the street after 10 p.m. need to be ticketed. 

But he emphasized, “Not drivers who are just doing their job in the middle of the day.”

He said it would have made more sense if he’d received a ticket for a machine that he knows is really noisy: a fast 1931 Model A rat rod named “Clyde” that he built several years ago. 

Several of Stecks’ co-workers smiled and nodded their heads as he said this, because they know exactly how loud Clyde can be cranked it up.

Stecks said his main problem with the ordinance is that it relies on a police officer to make a judgment call about how loud the noise is.

“They need to measure it,” he said. “That’s the only way they should ever do this.”

Geno breaks the sound barrier 6 15 26

<title>Meet The First Driver To Get A Ticket Under Cheyenne’s New Noise Ordinance | Cowboy State Daily</title>

Mechanic Geno Stecks got the first ticket under Cheyenne’s new noise ordinance while delivering a car part in the middle of the day. When the officer told him he couldn't hear his radio because of the exhaust, Stecks said, "Turn your volume knob up."

Meet The First Driver To Get A Ticket Under Cheyenne’s New Noise Ordinance

Headshot of Cowboy State Daily's general assignment reporter, Clair McFarland.

Clair McFarland

Crime & Courts

Courts

After the state of Wyoming and a group of young men suing the Wyoming Boys' School sifted through several hours of testimony, video, and evidence, it now falls to a federal court judge to decide whether school staffers violated multiple boys’ rights.

They’re accused of restraining, confining, and using force on them — or if the staffers’ actions are protected by qualified immunity and other safeguards in the law.

 Blaise Chivers-King, Charles “Rees” Karn, and Dylan Tolar 

sued the Wyoming Department of Family Services

, the Wyoming Boys’ School in Worland, and 10 former and current employees in 2024.

The school is a facility to which courts send boys judged delinquent in Wyoming. 

The plaintiffs, all boys who had been committed to the school in 2018 and afterward, alleged that school staffers confined, beat, humiliated and abused them. More plaintiffs joined the case later that year: Haiden Willis, Koby Cranford, and a minor identified by the initials “DH.”

In the months that followed, parties on both sides of the case sifted through several hours of depositions and other evidence.

After that, the boys decided against continuing to sue two of the staffers: Margaret Dahlke and Clark Les Urbin.

U.S. District Court Judge Scott Skavdahl dismissed Dahlke and Urbin from the case on April 8 of this year, at the plaintiffs’ request.

Karn is serving a life sentence in the Wyoming Department of Corrections for 

[{"type":"text","text":"End This, State Says"}]

The government agencies and boys’ school staffers argued in a May 14 brief that Skavdahl should judge the case early in their favor.

The brief largely blames the boys’ behavior for the aggressive interactions between boys and staffers, and for the time some of the boys spent in restraint chairs, solitary confinement, or other disciplinary statuses.

It invokes qualified immunity, which is a legal principle shielding government officials who act reasonably and in good faith from being sued. 

The brief also says two of the defendants, Karn and DH, didn’t do enough to plead their grievances with school authorities before resorting to civil litigation, and that that nullifies their claims.

D.H. has failed to show he suffered physical injury, and the boys haven’t proved they suffered excessive force, deliberate indifference to their medical needs, undue punishment or discrimination based on certain disabilities, the state’s brief alleges.

The former inmates fired back in their own filing Friday, urging the judge to send the case to trial rather than judge it early in favor of the state and staffers.

Their response filing leads with an allegation that school security guard Thad Shaffer said, “The best part of the chair is watching the kids cry and scream like a f***ing child … that’s what makes it worth it.” 

The exhibit from which this quote reportedly stems is not yet open to public viewing, the case file says.

However, the Friday filing includes a photo that claims to show one of the plaintiffs lashed to a chair with a mask over his head and a caption that says he would be placed in the restraint chair “for up to 8 hours a day."

The boys’ counter-argument casts doubt on the records the boys’ school is using to make its case.

“The (staffers’) logbooks had large gaps in documentation, inaccurate entries, uncertain authorship, and no verification mechanism,” the filing says. “For example, the Dorm 3 detention logbook has no entries between Apr. 7, 2024, and May 9, 2024, despite DH being in solitary confinement during that time.”

The document asserts that, "Additionally, incident reports were regularly falsified."

Karn and DH did fulfill the grievance requirements, as their parents submitted complaints on their behalf, the filing argues. Also, the school didn’t provide the boys methods to file grievances once they were no loner housed there, says the document.

The boys’ filing calls the state’s claims for qualified immunity inadequate. It says, “Defendants’ legal analysis on these four claims consists entirely of 

[{"type":"text","text":"All These Differences"}]

The state’s brief in favor of early judgment and the boys’ counter-brief tell different stories.

[{"type":"text","text":"Karn was placed at WBS in 2018. "}]

He was placed on detention status numerous times, including for throwing personal items, breaking glasses, disclosing thoughts of hurting others, the state’s brief says.

He was detained for seven days in December 2018 after assaulting a student with a shower head. Court documents dispute whether staffer John Schwalbe shoved Karn’s face into broken glass at that time.

Schwalbe testified that he did not; while the boys’ argument says Schwalbe did restrain Karn on broken glass, and that Schwalbe said, “if you’re going to break shit, then this is pretty much what you’re going to get.”

Karn was restrained numerous times for hitting things in his room, harming himself, hurting others, being disruptive and damaging property, says the state’s brief.

During a second stay at the facility Karn was placed on detention for misbehaviors including acts of violence, pretending to shoot people, damaging property, trying to run away, threatening staff and making terroristic bomb threats on Facebook, says the document.

He was restrained during the second stay, allegedly after punching a staffer, trying to flip or throw a desk, “spinning around to face staff when they entered to clean the detention room camera,” damaging cameras, smearing feces on the detention room, and other misbehaviors.

[{"type":"text","text":"The plaintiffs deny many of these characterizations."}]

The brief points to staffers’ deposition testimonies, in saying that the facility didn’t have safeguards in place to ensure the accuracy of incident reports.

The boys’ brief admits that Karn was placed in solitary confinement after making threats on Facebook, but adds, “(We) Deny that 13 days in solitary confinement for alleged threats was appropriate or that he received meaningful social stimuli, exercise, or education.”

In response to the boys’ school claim that Rees was restrained for trying to harm himself with a sock, the boys’ counter-argument says, “The video shows Rees playing with a sock, not tying it around his  neck or refusing staff instructions. Indeed, one sock appears on his foot the entire time.”

To another claim that  Karn was moved to a vacant dorm after threatening to assault staff and hitting a camera, the response parries that, “The video does not show Rees hitting the camera or threatening to assault staff.”

While the state alleges Karn was restrained in April 2021 after tearing a pillow apart and trying to hit staffers who entered to retrieve the pieces, the boys’ argument counters that a staffer initiated force “without provocation because Rees withheld a piece of pillow stuffing.”

Where the state asserts that Chivers-King was placed on detention status in May of 2020 for threatening and cursing at staff, throwing a chair, kicking his door and punching his window and lights — the boys’ response says Chivers-King toppled, rather than threw a chair. 

The boys’ response denies that Chivers-King continued to escalate, and says there was no reason for a staffer to use force on him, “as the video depicts Blaise (Chivers-King) standing with arms crossed when WBS staff forced him to the ground.”

Where the state asserts that DH continuously refused to follow instructions or engage in programming, the boys’ response says, “The behaviors for which DH was punished were obvious symptoms of his disabilities.”

When DH was in solitary confinement, says the boys’ brief, it was “lonely, depressing, and I had a few bugs for company.”

The state had asserted, conversely, that staffers gave DH “highly individualized attention” during that time to get him on track with the programming.

[{"type":"text","text":"The Clash Continues"}]

Disagreements between what prompted restraints and other punishments pervade the state’s argument and the boys’ counterargument.

In the segment pertaining to how staffers treated DH, the boys’ argument relates from another staffer’s deposition that Coronado called DH a “retard” nearly every day.

The boys’ argument contends that they had known disabilities and staffers didn’t accommodate them, while the state’s argument says of the boys, they “did not request any accommodations for any mental health diagnoses or physical conditions, nor was it obvious (they) needed any.”

Here the state’s argument says, There’s no “evidence plaintiffs were discriminated against ‘by reason of’ their disabilities; rather, the record shows WBS staff’s actions were based on Plaintiffs’ conduct.”

[{"type":"text","text":"Plaintiffs are asking the court to send these claims to trial:"}]

• Excessive force claims that staffers used excessive force by confining Karn and Willis in a restraint chair “for long stretches” when not necessary for people’s safety.

• Excessive force claims that staffers unnecessarily tackled, shoved, slammed and attacked boys who were not resisting, who were already subdued, or whose conduct didn’t merit such force.

• A deliberate indifference claim, asserting staffers were deliberately indifferent to some boys’ risks and serious medical needs.

• A claim that two staffers deprived the boys of due process, by denying them meaningful and periodic reviews of their solitary confinement, and meaningful notice of what they could do to earn release.

• A claim that staffers discriminated against and failed to accommodate the boys due to their various disabilities.

Wyoming Boys School lawsuit 6 15 26

<title>Court Filings Say Wyoming Boys' School Staffers Restrained, Attacked Boys | Cowboy State Daily</title>

A group of young men suing the Wyoming Boys’ School claim they were attacked, confined in a chair and made to wear a mask. “The best part of the chair is watching the kids cry and scream,” a security guard is alleged to have said.

Court Filings Say Wyoming Boys' School Staffers Restrained, Attacked Boys

Kolby fedore

Kolby Fedore

A Minnesota man says he was stunned to learn a stranger spent years building a life in Wyoming allegedly using his name — earning hundreds of thousands of dollars, fathering a child and leaving him to sort out the financial fallout with the IRS and owing child support.

Now, a Gillette welding worker is facing four felony identity theft charges after investigators say he used another man's name and Social Security number to obtain employment and official documents.

Jose Alfredo Guevara-Reyes, 45, made his initial appearance in Campbell County Circuit Court last week after being charged with four counts of unauthorized use of personal identifying information.

According to court documents, the case began June 8 when Gillette police received a handwritten letter from Martin Almendarez of Minneapolis saying that someone working in Gillette had been using his identity.

[{"type":"text","marks":[{"type":"bold"}],"text":"Child Support Surprise"}]

For Almendarez, the first signs of trouble didn't come from Wyoming law enforcement.

"I learned that the man who stole my identity had fathered a child," Almendarez said. 

Because the worker allegedly used Almendarez's Social Security number, the child's mother initially believed Almendarez was the father, he said.

The situation escalated when the state of Wyoming notified him that he was on the hook to financially support the child.

"I got a letter from the state of Wyoming saying that they were going to garnish my wages,” he told Cowboy State Daily.

Almendarez said even his employer questioned his identity as records tied to the alleged fraud surfaced. The Minnesota man said the ordeal was especially unsettling because he had never met the defendant.

[{"type":"text","text":"\"I don't even know him nor have I ever been to Wyoming,\" he said."}]

[{"type":"text","marks":[{"type":"bold"}],"text":"Welding Shop Discovery"}]

An affidavit filed in the case by Gillette Police Detective Brendan Trujillo says investigators contacted MC Welding Services after receiving Almendarez's complaint.

The company provided employment paperwork associated with the worker, including a W-4 tax form, an I-9 employment eligibility form, a Social Security card and a Texas driver's license bearing Almendarez's name, the affidavit says.

Police determined the Texas driver's license number actually belonged to another person in Texas, according to the affidavit.

Investigators then visited MC Welding and spoke with the employee using the documents.

The man then identified himself with a New Mexico driver's license as Jose Alfredo Guevara-Reyes of Las Cruces, New Mexico.

Reyes admitted to obtaining documents from a person in Texas for employment purposes but declined to identify the person.

A Minnesota man says a stranger spent years building a life in Wyoming using his identity — earning more than $500,000, fathering a child and leaving the man owing child support. "I don't even know him nor have I ever been to Wyoming,” the man said.

You Still Here? Wednesday, October 16, 2024

In case you missed it

More in You Still Here

Bonus Video 1: Tuesday, June 16, 2026

Today In Fire Hydrants: Tuesday, June 16, 2026

Steve Inman: Tuesday, June 16, 2026

Bonus Video 2: Tuesday, June 16, 2026

Most read