STATE OF VERMONT

STATE OF VERMONT WASHINGTON SUPERIOR COURT

WASHINGTON COUNTY, SS. Civil Action, Docket No. 656-12-03 Wncv

JUDICIAL WATCH, INC.,

Plaintiff

THE STATE OF VERMONT,

DEBORAH L. MARKOWITZ,

in her official capacity as Secretary of

State of the State of Vermont,

GREGORY SANFORD,

in his official capacity as State Archivist

of the State of Vermont, and

HOWARD DEAN, M.D.,

in his capacity as former

Governor of Vermont,

Defendants

REPLY TO COUNTERCLAIM

Plaintiff Judicial Watch, Inc. (“Judicial Watch”), by its undersigned attorneys, replies to Defendants’ Answer and Counterclaim as follows:

1. Admits that a true copy of an executed document entitled “Memorandum of Understanding Between the Governor and the Secretary of State of Vermont Regarding Archival Storage of Gubernatorial Papers” (or “MOU”) is attached as Appendix 1 to the Answer and Counterclaim, respectfully refers the Court thereto for its contents, and otherwise denies the allegations contained in paragraph 1 of the Counterclaim (including any alleged authority for, or legal force and effect of, such MOU).

2. Admits that a true copy of an executed document entitled “Memorandum of Understanding Between the Governor and the Secretary of State of Vermont Regarding Archival Storage of Gubernatorial Papers” (or “MOU”) is attached as Appendix 1 to the Answer and Counterclaim, respectfully refers the Court thereto for its contents, and otherwise denies the allegations contained in paragraph 2 of the Counterclaim (including any alleged authority for, or legal force and effect of, such MOU).

3. Admits that a true copy of an executed document entitled “Memorandum of Understanding Between the Governor and the Secretary of State of Vermont Regarding Archival Storage of Gubernatorial Papers” (or “MOU”) is attached as Appendix 1 to the Answer and Counterclaim, respectfully refers the Court thereto for its contents, and otherwise denies the allegations contained in paragraph 3 of the Counterclaim (including any alleged authority for, or legal force and effect of, such MOU).

4. Admits that a true copy of an executed document entitled “Memorandum of Understanding Between the Governor and the Secretary of State of Vermont Regarding Archival Storage of Gubernatorial Papers” (or “MOU”) is attached as Appendix 1 to the Answer and Counterclaim, respectfully refers the Court thereto for its contents, and otherwise denies the allegations contained in paragraph 4 of the Counterclaim (including any alleged authority for, or legal force and effect of, such MOU).

5. With regard to allegations contained in paragraph 5 of the Counterclaim regarding acts taken by Defendant Dean and acts currently being taken Defendant Markowitz, denies knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to their truth. Plaintiff admits that a true copy of an executed document entitled “Memorandum of Understanding Between the Governor and the Secretary of State of Vermont Regarding Archival Storage of Gubernatorial Papers” (or “MOU”) is attached as Appendix 1 to the Answer and Counterclaim, respectfully refers the Court thereto for its contents, and otherwise denies the allegations contained in paragraph 5 of the Counterclaim (including any alleged authority for, or legal force and effect of, such MOU).

6. Denies knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations contained in paragraph 6 of the Counterclaim.

7. Admits that Judicial Watch has requested gubernatorial public records and papers that are in the custody or control of one or more of the Defendants, respectfully refers the Court to those written requests for their contents, and otherwise denies the allegations contained in paragraph 7 of the Counterclaim (including any alleged authority for, or legal force and effect of, such MOU).

8. States that the allegations contained in paragraph 8 are a characterization of the present action to which no response is required. To the extent a response may be deemed required, Plaintiff admits that it has commenced this civil action and that it is presently pending, denies the allegations contained in paragraph 8 of the Counterclaim to the extent that it is an incomplete and inaccurate characterization of this action and the complaint, and respectfully refers the Court to its “Complaint Under Vermont Access to Public Records Law and Request for Precedence on the Docket” for its contents.

9. Denies the allegations contained in paragraph 9 of the Counterclaim.

10. Denies the allegations contained in paragraph 10 of the Counterclaim.

11. Denies the allegations contained in paragraph 11 of the Counterclaim.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests that: (i) Defendants’ requests for declaratory judgment be denied; (ii) Defendants’ Affirmative Defenses be stricken; (iii) this Court assess against Defendants all of Plaintiff’s costs and attorneys’ fees incurred in this action; and (iv) this Court grant Plaintiff such other and further legal and equitable relief as deemed just and proper.

Dated: Burlington, Vermont

December 3, 2003

Paul J. Orfanedes, Esq.

Judicial Watch, Inc.

501 School Street, S.W., Suite 725

Washington, DC 20024

(202) 646-5172

and

___________________________________

Andrew D. Manitsky, Esq.

Gravel and Shea

76 St. Paul Street, 7^th Floor

P. O. Box 369

Burlington, VT 05402-0369

(802) 658-0220

For Plaintiff