Answer of Colorado Ethics Watch

Case 1:14-cv-02850-REB-KLM Document 38 Filed 12/15/14 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 11
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
ROCKY MOUNTAIN GUN OWNERS, a
Colorado non-profit corporation, and
COLORADO CAMPAIGN FOR LIFE, a
Colorado non-profit corporation,
Plaintiffs,
v.
Civil Action No.
SCOTT GESSLER, in his official capacity as

Secretary of State for the State of Colorado,
and
14-cv-02850-REB-KLM
CITIZENS FOR RESPONSIBILITY AND

ETHICS IN WASHINGTON, a Delaware nonprofit corporation, t/a COLORADO ETHICS
WATCH,
Defendants.
ANSWER OF CITIZENS FOR RESPONSIBILITY AND ETHICS IN WASHINGTON

D/B/A COLORADO ETHICS WATCH
Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington d/b/a Colorado Ethics Watch
(Ethics Watch), through undersigned counsel, for its answer to the complaint filed by
Rocky Mountain Gun Owners (RMGO) and Colorado Campaign for Life (CCL),
states as follows:
RESPONSE TO INTRODUCTION
1.
Paragraph 1 of the Complaint contains legal conclusions, legal argument, or

describes the relief sought. Because these are not factual allegations, no response
is required.
2.

is required.
3.

is required.
4.

is required.
5.

is required.
6.

is required.
7.

is required.
RESPONSE TO JURISDICTION AND VENUE
8.
In response to Paragraph 8 of the Complaint, Ethics Watch admits and avers that
this Court has jurisdiction over the subject matter of this action.
9.
In response to Paragraph 9 of the Complaint, Ethics Watch admits and avers that
this Court has jurisdiction over the subject matter of this action.
10.

is required.
11.
In response to Paragraph 11 of the Complaint, Ethics Watch admits and avers

that venue is proper in this Court.
RESPONSE TO PARTIES
12.
In response to Paragraph 12, Ethics Watch admits that RMGO is a Colorado

non-profit corporation. Ethics Watch is without information sufficient to form a belief
as to the remaining factual allegations of Paragraph 12 and therefore denies them.
The remainder of Paragraph 12 contains legal conclusions, legal argument, or
is required.
13.
Ethics Watch is without information sufficient to form a belief as to the allegations

of Paragraph 13 of the Complaint and therefore denies them.
14.

15.
In response to Paragraph 13, Ethics Watch admits that CCL is a Colorado nonprofit corporation. Ethics Watch is without information sufficient to form a belief as to
the remaining factual allegations of Paragraph 15 and therefore denies them. The
remainder of Paragraph 15 contains legal conclusions, legal argument, or describes
the relief sought. Because these are not factual allegations, no response is required.
16.

17.

RESPONSE TO DEFENDANTS
18.
Ethics Watch admits the allegations of Paragraph 18 of the Complaint.
19.
20.

RESPONSE TO STATUTORY AND REGULATORY BACKGROUND
21.
Paragraph 21 states legal conclusions to which no response is required.
22.
23.
24.
25.
26.
27.
28.
29.

RESPONSE TO FACTUAL BACKGROUND
30.
31.
32.
33.
34.
35.
36.
In response to Paragraph 36, Ethics Watch denies that Exhibits A, B and C do

not expressly or impliedly advocate for the election or defeat of any candidate for
office. Ethics Watch is without information sufficient to form a belief as to the
remaining allegations of Paragraph 36 of the Complaint and therefore denies them.
RESPONSE TO PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
37.
38.
39.

that the complaint filed by Ethics Watch speaks for itself, and accordingly denies
Plaintiffs characterizations of that document.
40.
In response to Paragraph 40 of the Complaint, Ethics Watch admits that RMGO

and CCL would be required to report the amount expended on the communications
at issue. Ethics Watch denies the remaining allegations of Paragraph 40.
41.
42.
Ethics Watch denies the allegations of Paragraph 42 of the Complaint and further
avers that (1) the original hearing date of September 23, 2014 was continued upon a
motion made by RMGO and CCL, and (2) Ethics Watch did not oppose RMGO and
CCLs motion for a second continuance of the hearing to December 17, 2014 at 9:00
a.m.
43.
Ethics Watch admits that it is the complaining party in Office of Administrative

Courts Case No. 20140025, that Ethics Watchs complaint alleges violations of
Colorado law, and that Ethics Watch is a private entity and not affiliated in any way
with the State of Colorado. Ethics Watch denies the remaining allegations of
Paragraph 43 of the Complaint.
44.

that the Notice of Hearing speaks for itself, and accordingly denies Plaintiffs
characterizations of that document.
45.
In response to Paragraph 45, Ethics Watch admits that it served deposition

notices and document requests upon RMGO and CCL, and further admits and avers
that it withdrew those notices after the parties entered into a stipulation of facts. The
remainder of Paragraph 45 states legal conclusions and argument that do not
require a response.
46.
In response to Paragraph 46, Ethics Watch admits and avers that RMGO is
subject to fines for their violations of Colorado disclosure laws, and that Ethics
Watch urged RMGO and CCL to comply with Colorado law as reflected in Exhibit H.
Ethics Watch denies the remaining allegations of Paragraph 46.
47.
Ethics Watch denies the allegations of Paragraph 47 of the Complaint.
48.

RESPONSE TO CLAIMS FOR RELIEF
49.
Paragraph 49 states legal conclusions and argument that do not require a

response.
50.

response.
51.

response.
52.

response.
53.

response.
54.

response.
55.

response.
56.

response.
57.

response.
RESPONSE TO FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF
58.
Ethics Watch incorporates its responses to Paragraphs 1-57 above.
59.
60.
61.
62.

response.
63.
64.
65.

response.
66.
67.
68.

RESPONSE TO SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF
69.
70.
71.
72.
73.

RESPONSE TO THIRD CLAIM FOR RELIEF
74.
75.
76.

response.
77.
In response to Paragraph 77, Ethics Watch admits and avers that it urged RMGO
and CCL to comply with Colorado law as set forth in Exhibit H. The remainder of
Paragraph 77 states legal conclusions and argument that do not require a response.
78.
79.
80.

response.
81.

that Colorados disclosure laws are burdensome to Colorado citizens, who are
forced to prosecute lawsuits at their own expense in order to compel disclosures of

information that is legally required and necessary for an informed electorate, and are
subject to being sued in federal court for exercising their right to petition the
government for redress of grievances. Ethics Watch denies the remaining
allegations of Paragraph 81.
82.

RESPONSE TO FOURTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF
83.
Ethics Watch incorporates its responses to Paragraph 83 of the Complaint.
84.
Paragraph 84 of the Complaint states legal conclusions and argument that do not
require a response.
85.
Ethics Watch denies the allegations of Paragraph 85 of the Complaint and further
alleges that the Colorado Constitution was amended in 2002, among other things, to
require disclosure of political spending.
86.
87.

AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES
1.
Plaintiffs have failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted against
Ethics Watch.
2.
Plaintiffs claims are subject, in whole or in part, to the doctrine of Pullman

abstention.
3.
Some or all of Plaintiffs claims are not ripe for adjudication.
4.
Ethics Watchs petitioning activity is protected by the First Amendment to the

United States Constitution, Article II, Section 25 of the Colorado Constitution, and
Article XXVIII, Section 9(2) of the Colorado Constitution.
WHEREFORE, Defendant Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington
d/b/a Colorado Ethics Watch respectfully requests that the Court enter judgment in
its favor and against Plaintiffs Rocky Mountain Gun Owners and Colorado Campaign
for Life, dismissing the Complaint with prejudice, and granting such further relief as
the Court deems proper.
DATED: December 15, 2014.
____s/ Luis A. Toro

Luis A. Toro
Margaret G. Perl
COLORADO ETHICS WATCH
1630 Welton Street, Suite 415
Denver, CO 80202
Telephone: 303-626-2100
Facsimile: 303-626-2101
Email: pperl@coloradoforethics.org
ltoro@coloradoforethics.org
Attorneys for Colorado Ethics Watch
10
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I certify that on December 15, 2014, a copy of the foregoing ANSWER OF
CITIZENS FOR RESPONSIBILITY AND ETHICS IN WASHINGTON D/B/A
COLORADO ETHICS WATCH was served through CM/ECF on the parties listed below:
David A. Warrington
Laurin H. Mills
Andrew J. Narod
Paris R. Sorrell
LeClairRyan, A Professional Corporation
2318 Mill Road, Suite 1100
Alexandria, Virginia 22314
Telephone: (703) 684-8007
Facsimile: (703) 647-5999
david.warrington@leclairryan.com
laurin.mills@leclairryan.com
andrew.narod@leclairryan.com
paris.sorrell@leclairryan.com
James O. Bardwell
Rocky Mountain Gun Owners
501 Main Street, Suite 200
Windsor, CO 80550
Telephone: (877) 405-4570
Facsimile: (202) 351-0528
jb@nagrhq.org
Attorneys for Rocky Mountain Gun Owners and Colorado Campaign for Life
KATHRYN A. STARNELLA*
Assistant Attorney General
FREDERICK R. YARGER*
Assistant Solicitor General
Public Officials Unit |State Services Section
1300 Broadway, 10th Floor
Denver, Colorado 80203
Telephone: (720) 508-6176
Facsimile: (720) 508-6041
E-Mail: kathryn.starnella@state.co.us
fred.yarger@state.co.us
Attorneys for Colorado Secretary of State
___s/ Luis A. Toro_________________
Luis A. Toro
11

Answer of Colorado Ethics Watch

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Answer of Colorado Ethics Watch

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Case 1:14-cv-02850-REB-KLM Document 38 Filed 12/15/14 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 11

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

Civil Action No.

SCOTT GESSLER, in his official capacity as

CITIZENS FOR RESPONSIBILITY AND

ANSWER OF CITIZENS FOR RESPONSIBILITY AND ETHICS IN WASHINGTON

Paragraph 1 of the Complaint contains legal conclusions, legal argument, or

Case 1:14-cv-02850-REB-KLM Document 38 Filed 12/15/14 USDC Colorado Page 2 of 11

Paragraph 2 of the Complaint contains legal conclusions, legal argument, or

Paragraph 3 of the Complaint contains legal conclusions, legal argument, or

Paragraph 4 of the Complaint contains legal conclusions, legal argument, or

Paragraph 5 of the Complaint contains legal conclusions, legal argument, or

Paragraph 6 of the Complaint contains legal conclusions, legal argument, or

Paragraph 7 of the Complaint contains legal conclusions, legal argument, or

Case 1:14-cv-02850-REB-KLM Document 38 Filed 12/15/14 USDC Colorado Page 3 of 11

Paragraph 10 of the Complaint contains legal conclusions, legal argument, or

In response to Paragraph 11 of the Complaint, Ethics Watch admits and avers

In response to Paragraph 12, Ethics Watch admits that RMGO is a Colorado

Ethics Watch is without information sufficient to form a belief as to the allegations

Ethics Watch is without information sufficient to form a belief as to the allegations

Ethics Watch is without information sufficient to form a belief as to the allegations

Case 1:14-cv-02850-REB-KLM Document 38 Filed 12/15/14 USDC Colorado Page 4 of 11

Ethics Watch is without information sufficient to form a belief as to the allegations

Ethics Watch admits the allegations of Paragraph 18 of the Complaint.

Ethics Watch admits the allegations of Paragraph 19 of the Complaint.

Ethics Watch admits the allegations of Paragraph 20 of the Complaint.

Paragraph 21 states legal conclusions to which no response is required.

Paragraph 22 states legal conclusions to which no response is required.

Paragraph 23 states legal conclusions to which no response is required.

Paragraph 24 states legal conclusions to which no response is required.

Paragraph 25 states legal conclusions to which no response is required.

Paragraph 26 states legal conclusions to which no response is required.

Paragraph 27 states legal conclusions to which no response is required.

Paragraph 28 states legal conclusions to which no response is required.

Paragraph 29 states legal conclusions to which no response is required.

Ethics Watch admits the allegations of Paragraph 30 of the Complaint.

Ethics Watch admits the allegations of Paragraph 31 of the Complaint.

Ethics Watch admits the allegations of Paragraph 32 of the Complaint.

Ethics Watch admits the allegations of Paragraph 33 of the Complaint.

Ethics Watch admits the allegations of Paragraph 34 of the Complaint.

Ethics Watch admits the allegations of Paragraph 35 of the Complaint.

Case 1:14-cv-02850-REB-KLM Document 38 Filed 12/15/14 USDC Colorado Page 5 of 11

In response to Paragraph 36, Ethics Watch denies that Exhibits A, B and C do

Ethics Watch admits the allegations of Paragraph 37 of the Complaint.

Ethics Watch admits the allegations of Paragraph 38 of the Complaint.

In response to Paragraph 39 of the Complaint, Ethics Watch admits and avers

In response to Paragraph 40 of the Complaint, Ethics Watch admits that RMGO

Ethics Watch admits the allegations of Paragraph 41 of the Complaint.

Ethics Watch admits that it is the complaining party in Office of Administrative

Case 1:14-cv-02850-REB-KLM Document 38 Filed 12/15/14 USDC Colorado Page 6 of 11

In response to Paragraph 44 of the Complaint, Ethics Watch admits and avers

In response to Paragraph 45, Ethics Watch admits that it served deposition

Ethics Watch denies the allegations of Paragraph 47 of the Complaint.

Ethics Watch denies the allegations of Paragraph 48 of the Complaint.

Paragraph 49 states legal conclusions and argument that do not require a

Paragraph 50 states legal conclusions and argument that do not require a

Paragraph 51 states legal conclusions and argument that do not require a

Case 1:14-cv-02850-REB-KLM Document 38 Filed 12/15/14 USDC Colorado Page 7 of 11

Paragraph 52 states legal conclusions and argument that do not require a

Paragraph 53 states legal conclusions and argument that do not require a

Paragraph 54 states legal conclusions and argument that do not require a

Paragraph 55 states legal conclusions and argument that do not require a

Paragraph 56 states legal conclusions and argument that do not require a

Paragraph 57 states legal conclusions and argument that do not require a