Skip to content

Judicial Watch • 2011 jw-v-co-oarc-repbrief-03142011

2011 jw-v-co-oarc-repbrief-03142011

2011 jw-v-co-oarc-repbrief-03142011

Page 1: 2011 jw-v-co-oarc-repbrief-03142011

Category:Legal Document

Number of Pages:20

Date Created:March 14, 2011

Date Uploaded to the Library:July 30, 2013

Tags:attorneys, telephone, independent, official, subject, chief, exhibit, number, authority, requested, public, Supreme, Attorney, Counsel, responsive, justice, defendant, watch, plaintiff, request, records, funds, State, judicial, Supreme Court, James, Washington, court, IRS, ICE, CIA


File Scanned for Malware

Donate now to keep these documents public!

  • demand_answers

See Generated Text   ˅

Autogenerated text from PDF

DISTRICT COURT, CITY AND COUNTY DENVER, COLORADO 
Court Address: 	1437 Bannock Street Denver, 80202 
Plaintiff: JOHN GLEASON, his official capacity Supreme Court Attorney Regulation Counsel 
vs. 
Defendant: JUDICIAL WATCH, INC. 
Consolidated with: 

Plaintiff: JUDICIAL WATCH, INC., District Columbia not-for-profit corporation 
vs. 
Defendants: OFFICE ATTORNEY REGULATION COUNSEL, Colorado state agency, and JOHN GLEASON, his capacity the State Colorado Regulation Counsel 
Attorneys for Defendant: 
Name:  James Rouse 
Address: Rouse Law Office, P.C.  

8400 Prentice Ave., Suite 1040 
Greenwood Village, 80111-2922 Phone Number: (303) 694-0694 Fax Number:  (303) 793-3678 E-mail:  jrouse@rouseandassoc.com Atty. Reg. No.: 10675 
Name:  Michael Bekesha 
Address: 	Judicial Watch, Inc.                 425 Third St., S.W., Suite 800                 Washington, 20024 
Phone Number: (202) 646-5172 Fax Number:  (202) 646-5199 E-mail:  mbekesha@judicialwatch.org 
D.C. Bar. No.: 	995749; Admitted Pro Hac Vice 

 COURT USE ONLY 
 _______________________ 

Case Number: 2010 8996 
Consolidated with: 2010-CV-9052 
Div.: Ctrm.: 
JUDICIAL WATCH, INC.S ANSWER BRIEF 

INTRODUCTION 

During its February 2011 conference chambers, the Court requested that the parties brief whether the records that are the subject Judicial Watchs Colorado Open Records Act (CORA) request are public records under the terms the statute. its opening brief, Judicial Watch did just that.  Instead limiting their brief the specific question asked the Court, however, the Office the Attorney Regulation Counsel (OARC) and the Attorney Regulation Counsel (ARC) (collectively OARC/ARC) raised new, additional, and unpersuasive arguments about why the OARC/ARC believe that they may continue withhold the requested public records from Judicial Watch.1  Nevertheless, Judicial Watch has demonstrated and continues demonstrate that the records requested are Colorado public records created, maintained, and/or kept the OARC/ARC their capacities public entity and public official, respectively, the State Colorado.  
ARGUMENT The Requested Records are Colorado Public Records under CORA. 
The current posture the instant matter simple.  Judicial Watch asserts that the records requested September 2010 are Colorado public records subject CORA.  The OARC/ARC disagree. The OARC/ARC assert that the requested records are not Colorado public records all because, they claim, serving Independent Bar Counsel for the Supreme 
Judicial Watchs Complaint named both the OARC and the ARC defendants, and neither the OARC nor the ARC assert that the OARC not proper defendant.  Consequently, there dispute that both the OARC and the ARC are parties this action.  Nonetheless, the brief submitted John Gleason, his official capacity Supreme Court Attorney Regulation Counsel makes reference the OARC. Judicial Watch assumes this omission was merely oversight and, for the sake convenience, will refer the brief having been submitted both the OARC and the ARC. 
Court Arizona, they are not acting Colorado public capacity.  See ARC Opening Brief Judicial Watch outlined its opening brief, there any dispute whether the requested records are public records subject CORA, Colorado law places the initial burden the requestor demonstrate that the records are likely public records.  Denver Publishing Co. Board Commissioners the County Arapahoe, 121 P.3d 190, 199 (Colo. 2005) (citing Wick Communications Co. Montrose Daily Press, P.3d 360, 362 (Colo. 2003)). This demonstration varies depending whether the custodian the records public entity public official. the custodian the requested records public entity, the initial burden unquestionably met and further inquiry necessary.  Denver Publishing, 121 P.3d 199; see also Denver Post Corp. Ritter, 230 P.3d 1238, 1241 (Colo. App. 2009). If, however, the custodian public official, then the requestor satisfies the burden showing that the records are made, maintained, kept public, opposed private, capacity.  Denver Publishing, 121 P.3d 199 (citing Wick, P.3d 366); Ritter, 230 P.3d 1241. Once requestor has demonstrated that likely that the requested records are public records, the burden shifts the public official demonstrate that this not the case. Id. its opening brief, Judicial Watch satisfied both tests.  Rather than rebutting Judicial Watchs demonstration showing that the requested records are the private records the ARC showing the OARC/ARC obviously cannot make the OARC/ARC invented new classification records, then claimed that this new classification applies the records requested Judicial Watch. Specifically, the OARC/ARC assert that records Colorado public official are not subject CORA the official acting non-Colorado public capacity.  ARC Opening Brief Therefore, the OARC/ARC argue, order for record subject 
CORA, requestor must demonstrate that the records are made, maintained, kept 
Colorado-public capacity. Id. 
Judicial Watch has found Colorado law authority recognizing any such classification records, indeed any circumstances all, which Colorado public official acting public capacity was acting anything other than Colorado public capacity.  There simply such classification under CORA, nor there any such concept under Colorado law. This Court should not the first recognize such counterintuitive, novel, and problematic concept. should reject the OARC/ARCs argument for this reason alone.  
Regardless, Judicial Watch can easily satisfy this newly-created standard. their opening brief, the OARC/ARC produce what alleged March 25, 2010 Order Appointment which Chief Justice Mary Mularkey the Colorado Supreme Court directs the OARC/ARC assist the Arizona Supreme Court.  See ARCs Opening Brief Exhibit  The Order Appointment notes that the Supreme Court Arizona has requested assistance from the Supreme Court Colorado investigate possible attorney misconduct Arizona.  Id. states that the OARC under the direction the Colorado Supreme Court and perform[s] such duties assigned the Court.  Id. then formally orders the ARC and his staff serve Independent Bar Counsel pursuant the March 23, 2010 Administrative Order issued the Chief Justice the Arizona Supreme Court.  Id. 
The Order Appointment could not demonstrate any more clearly that, being appointed Independent Bar Counsel Arizona, the OARC and the ARC Colorado public entity and Colorado public official, respectively are purportedly carrying out directive and performing duties assigned the Colorado Supreme Court. doing so, the Order Appointment also makes clear that the OARC/ARC are acting their official capacities 
public entity and public official, respectively, the State Colorado, not any non-
Colorado public capacity, whatever that might mean.  Indeed, the OARC/ARC were not acting allegedly their official capacities Colorado public entity and Colorado public officer, then their activities Arizona would likely ultra vires and may constitute both misuse public resources and abuse public office. For the OARC/ARC claim that the Colorado Supreme Courts Order Appointment directing them serve Independent Bar Counsel Arizona somehow means the the ARC longer acting Colorado public capacity not only completely unsupported Colorado law, but contrary the express language the Order Appointment cited the OARC/ARC their opening brief.   
Moreover, the OARC/ARCs argument ignores the fact that the Colorado public records requested Judicial Watch not concern relate the substance OARC/ARCs actual work Independent Bar Counsel Arizona.2  First, Judicial Watch requested communications between the OARC/ARC, the Arizona Supreme Court, and/or the Arizona State Bar concerning the OARC/ARCs appointment Independent Bar Counsel Arizona.  See Judicial Watchs CORA Request Item No.  The Colorado Supreme Courts March 25, 2010 Order Appointment notes that the OARC 
has received Administrative Order 2010-42, dated March 23, 2010, issued 
Chief Justice the Arizona Supreme Court Rebecca White Berch authorizing the 
[OARC] investigate, and, necessary, prosecute specified lawyer misconduct 
cases the State Bar Association Arizona.   ARC Opening Brief Exhibit  Presumably, the Arizona Administrative Order did not simply appear OARC/ARC without any prior communications between the OARC/ARC and the Arizona Supreme Court the Arizona State Bar about the pending appointment.  Thus, the Judicial Watch has repeatedly asserted, has not and does not seek access any work product, working files, deliberations, internal communication created, maintained, kept the OARC/ARC serving Independent Bar Counsel Arizona. 
requested records include records communications prior the issuance the Arizona 
Administrative Order.  These communications would likely detail the scope the proposed appointment, facts and circumstances surrounding the appointment, costs and expenses associated with the appointment, and other logistical matters.  The OARC/ARC cannot claim that such records were made, maintained, kept Arizona public capacity opposed Colorado public capacity because the OARC/ARC had not yet been appointed the Colorado Supreme Court serve Independent Bar Counsel Arizona.  For these same reasons, such records also would not reflect any the actual work product, working files, deliberations, internal communications the OARC/ARC Independent Bar Counsel Arizona. 
Second, Judicial Watch also requested records communications between the OARC/ARC and the Colorado Supreme Court about the Arizona Administrative Order.  See Judicial Watchs CORA Request Item No.  Like the first category records requested Judicial Watch, some point, the Colorado Supreme Court must have become aware the Arizona Supreme Courts request for assistance.  Otherwise, the Colorado Supreme Court would not have issued its March 25, 2010 Order Appointment.  Presumably, the OARC/ARC and the Colorado Supreme Court communicated with each other about the Arizona Supreme Courts request for assistance, well the subsequent Order Appointment issued the Colorado Supreme Court.  Any such records are responsive Judicial Watchs request.  Certainly the Colorado Supreme Courts Order Appointment one such record responsive the request. claim that the Order Appointment issued the Colorado Supreme Court the OARC/ARC not Colorado public record would absurd.  The OARC/ARC cannot claim that records responsive Request No. were made, maintained, kept anything other than Colorado public capacity. 
Third, Judicial Watch requested records about the legal authority the OARC/ARC 
accept the appointment Independent Bar Counsel Arizona, well records about the legal authority generally the OARC/ARC investigate prosecute allegations attorney misconduct for entity other than the Supreme Court Colorado allegations misconduct non-Colorado attorneys outside Colorado.  See Judicial Watchs CORA Request Item Nos. These requests expressly seek records regarding the OARC/ARC authority conduct such investigations and prosecutions under Colorado law.  Id. Any records responsive Request Nos. and are not specific the the OARC/ARCs appointment Independent Bar Counsel Arizona. Rather, they concern the authority the OARC/ARC, under Colorado law, conduct non-Colorado out-of-state investigations general. impossible conceive how records made, maintained, kept Colorado public entity and Colorado public official regarding their authority, under Colorado law engage some activity undertake some task could anything but Colorado public records.  Thus, because the specific manner which Judicial Watch formulated these requests, any responsive records clearly constitute records made, maintained, kept Colorado public capacity.  They certainly are not records made, maintained, kept any specific Arizona public capacity. 
Fourth, Judicial Watch requested bills, invoices, statements for services rendered expenses incurred the OARC/ARC serving Independent Bar Counsel Arizona, well records payments received the OARC/ARC, the Colorado Supreme Court, the State Colorado for services rendered expenses incurred OARC/ARC.  See Judicial Watchs CORA Request Item Nos. 6-7.  The Arizona Administrative Order, which the Colorado Supreme Court incorporated reference into its Order Appointment, directs that [t]he State Bar Arizona shall pay reasonable fees, costs for services provided, and expenses incurred 
[OARC/ARC] necessary carry out the duties required this Order.  ARC Opening Brief Exhibits and The billing records Colorado public entity Colorado public official and the records payments for services rendered and expenses incurred Colorado public entity Colorado public official are quintessential Colorado public records. way analogy, when vendor generates bill send customer, when vendor receives payment from customer, both the billing records and any record payment obviously constitute records the vendor. minimum, they are records both the vendor and the customer. certainly cannot said that such records are the records the customer exclusively. Likewise here, billing records service rendered and expenses incurred OARC/ARC acting Independent Bar Counsel Arizona, well records payments the Arizona State Bar for these same services and expenses, constitute records the OARC/ARC. They clearly are made, maintained, kept OARC/ARC Colorado public capacity. sum, Judicial Watch has demonstrated that least likely that the requested records are Colorado public records subject disclosure under CORA.  Since Judicial Watch satisfied its initial burden, the burden then shifts the OARC/ARC show that the records are not Colorado public records. Denver Publishing, 121 P.3d 199; Wick, P.3d 362-363; Ritter, 230 P.3d 1241. The OARC/ARC did not make this showing its opening brief, and cannot make this showing elsewhere.  The requested records clearly are Colorado public records subject disclosure under CORA. 
II. The OARC/ARCs New Arguments are Unpersuasive and Irrelevant. The OARC/ARC subject CORA. their opening brief, the OARC/ARC argue, for the first time since Judicial Watch made its CORA request approximately six months ago, that they are not subject CORA.  See ARCs Opening Brief (CORA does not apply the ARC.).  The OARC/ARC communicated with Judicial Watch least twice response Judicial Watchs CORA request, and neither instance did they make the blanket assertion that they are not subject CORA.  Id. Exhibits and Similarly, the OARC/ARC did not assert any their pleadings this litigation that they are not subject CORA.  See Defendants Answer (Case No. 2010-cv-9052) and Plaintiffs Reply Counterclaim (Case No. 2010-cv-8996).   
Moreover, the OARC/ARC conceded that they are subject CORA when they applied this Court for declaratory relief. See Application Pursuant Section 24-72-204(6)(A), C.R.S. 2010 (Case No. 2010-cv-8996). Obviously, the OARC/ARC cannot apply this Court for remedy under CORA CORA does not apply them. incongruous, not inconsistent and contradictory, for the OARC/ARC try take advantage procedure made available under CORA while also arguing that CORA does not apply. 
Nor did the OARC/ARC even suggest during the February 2011 conference before this Court that they are not subject CORA.  The only issue discussed during the conference was how proceed light the OARC/ARCs claim that the requested records are not Colorado public records. For the OARC/ARC now argue that they are not even subject CORA contrary all the assertions they previously made Judicial Watch and the Court. 
Regardless, Colorado law clear:  CORA indeed does apply the OARC/ARC.  CORA defines public record all writings made, maintained, kept the state, any agency, 
institution .  24-72-202, C.R.S.  CORA also defines official custodian any officer 
employee the state, any agency, institution .  Id. other words, any officer employee the state subject CORA.  The OARC obviously agency institution the state. See Defendants Answer (Case No. 2010-cv-9052)   Similarly, undisputed that the ARC official and employee the state.  See Defendants Answer (Case No. 2010-cv-9052)  The ARC created and appointed the Colorado Supreme Court.  
C.R.C.P. 251.3(a). Yet, their opening brief, the OARC/ARC not cite any statute case law support their assertion that CORA does not apply the ARC. 
The best that the OARC/ARC can muster Office the State Court Administrator Background Information Services, 994 P.2d 420 (Colo. 1999) (BIS), which, they claim, supports the proposition that the judiciary not necessarily subject CORA.  See ARC Opening Brief (emphasis added). BIS does not address the OARC, the ARC, records created administrative offices and officials within the Colorado judiciary such the OARC and the ARC. Instead, BIS addresses the narrow issue the release computer-generated bulk data containing very particularized information about individuals who are parties criminal civil cases the State Colorado.  Id. 422. addition filings criminal cases, the records issue BIS included divorce filings, general civil case filings, probate, mental health, juvenile, dependency and neglect, and water case filings.  Id. 427. other words, the records issue contained very private emotional, financial, and psychological documents, well identifying information such drivers license numbers, social security numbers, and addresses many the people who are party witness civil criminal case. Id. 429. BIS, the Court did not hold that the entire Colorado judiciary, even particular offices officials within the Colorado judiciary, can never subject CORA.  
Rather, the Court held that absent statutory mandate dealing with particular court records, such records official action criminal cases, the courts themselves retain authority over the dissemination court records.  Id. 432. The Court held only that the courts, custodians court records from case filings, are not subject CORA. 
Unlike the requester BIS, Judicial Watch has not sought access court records from case filings. Rather, the records Judicial Watch has requested are records about the OARC/ARCs appointment Independent Bar Counsel Arizona, the legal authority the OARC/ARC accept this particular appointment and out-of-state appointments general, and billing records and records any payments the Arizona State Bar.  The holding BIS clearly does not apply the records requested Judicial Watch. anything, comparing BIS the specific facts the instant matter demonstrates that the OARC/ARC are flatly incorrect their newly found assertion that CORA does not apply the ARC. 
Nor can the OARC/ARC claim that the Colorado Supreme Court has plenary power determine the circumstances under which the records requested Judicial Watch may disclosed. the extent that the Supreme Court might have plenary power disclosure the records the OARC/ARC and Judicial Watch does not concede that does the OARC/ARC admit that this power derived from the Colorado Supreme Courts exclusive jurisdiction over attorneys and the authority regulate, govern, and supervise the practice law Colorado protect the public. See ARC Opening Brief (citing Colorado Supreme Court Grievance Committee District Court, 850 P.2d 150, 152 (Colo. 1993)). The records requested Judicial Watch not concern any Colorado attorneys the regulation, governance, supervision the practice law Colorado, however.  They concern Arizona attorneys who practice law Arizona.  There nexus whatsoever between the Arizona attorneys under investigation the OARC/ARC and the practice law Colorado, and the Colorado Supreme Court obviously does not have the authority regulate, govern, and supervise the practice law Arizona, much less the exclusive authority so. the instant matter, the alleged plenary power the Colorado Supreme Court control disclosure the requested records mirage.  The Colorado Supreme Court does not have any such plenary power with respect the requested records, which are nothing more than ordinary public records Colorado public entity and Colorado public official. result, the public records requested Judicial Watch are subject disclosure under CORA. addition, the OARC/ARC argue that the portion the request seeking documents concerning bills, invoices, statements expenses not subject CORA.  ARCs Opening Brief 11. Public records include writings involving the receipt and expenditure public funds. Id. (citing  24-72-202(6)(a)(I), C.R.S.). According the OARC/ARC, The question then whether bills, invoices and statements concerning moneys paid and received the ARC constitute public funds. Id. 12. The OARC/ARC argue that they are not, asserting that registration fees paid Colorado attorneys, not tax dollars, are used fund the OARC/ARCs disciplinary administration and enforcement functions. initial matter, the OARC/ARC have never identified the source the funds they are using serve Independent Bar Counsel Arizona.  Nor have they identified the source the funds they are using cover their obviously substantial expenses.  Likewise, they have not identified where any monies received from the Arizona State Bar have been deposited.  Certainly, monies paid the Arizona State Bar compensate the OARC/ARC for their services and reimburse them for their expenses are not registration fees.  Because these monies 
are not registration fees paid Colorado attorneys, the OARC/ARCs public funds argument 
fails initio. 
Moreover, the authority which the OARC/ARC rely support their claim that registration fees paid Colorado attorneys the Colorado Supreme Court are not public funds, Pensioners Protective Assoc. Davis, 150 P.2d 974 (Colo. 1944), defeats, rather than supports, the OARC/ARCs argument. issue Pensioners Protective Assoc. was whether group plaintiffs who succeeded restoring certain monies unlawfully diverted from pension fund could awarded attorneys fees out the restored monies.  The resolution the issue depended, least part, whether the monies held the pension fund were public funds.  The Court declared that they were not, finding that the monies held the pension fund were held trust for the pensioners. Id. 538. The term public funds means funds belonging the state The term does not apply special funds, which are collected voluntarily contributed, for the sole benefit the contributors, and which the state merely the custodian.  Id. 
541. the instant matter, certainly cannot said that registration fees paid Colorado attorneys for the privilege practicing law the State Colorado are held trust for the sole benefit these same attorneys. the OARC/ARC have acknowledged, attorney registration, supervision, and discipline are quintessential, not exclusive, state functions undertaken protect the public. See ARC Opening Brief (The Colorado Supreme Court has exclusive jurisdiction over attorneys and the authority regulate, govern, and supervise the practice law Colorado protect the public.) (internal citation omitted)(emphasis added).  Therefore, monies associated with attorney registration, supervision, and discipline, including monies paid Colorado attorneys the Colorado Supreme Court for the privilege practicing law the State Colorado, unquestionably are public monies.  
Regardless, Judicial Watch has never argued that the only reason the bills, invoices, and 
statements requested from the OARC/ARC are subject disclosure under CORA because these records involve the expenditure public funds.  Judicial Watch has already demonstrated that records concerning monies expended OARC/ARC serving Independent Bar Counsel Arizona, well records any monies received from the Arizona State Bar for this same service, are public records subject disclosure under CORA because they were made, maintained, and/or kept the OARC/ARC performing assignment allegedly ordered the Colorado Supreme Court. Public records are all writings made, maintained, kept for use the exercise functions required authorized law administrative rule involving the receipt expenditure public funds.   24-72-202, C.R.S. (emphasis added).  The OARC public institution, and the ARC public official.  Moreover, the OARC/ARC themselves claim that the Colorado Supreme Courts March 25, 2010 Order Appointment authorizes them serve Independent Bar Counsel Arizona.  Thus, based the OARC/ARCs own assertions, CORA applies them and all the public records requested Judicial Watch. The requested records are not exempt from disclosure. 
The ARCs remaining three arguments are not only improper, but also incorrect.  The Court specifically stated that would first address whether the requested records are public records. The Court also stated that, found that the requested records are public records under CORA, then would schedule additional briefing address whether the public records could withheld from disclosure pursuant exemptions.  Because the OARC/ARC apparently realized that they could not successfully argue that the requested records are not public records under 
CORA, they ignore this directive and argue the alternative that they may lawfully withhold the 
public records requested Judicial Watch.  The OARC/ARC are wrong. 
First, the OARC/ARC argue that C.R.C.P. prevents them from disclosing the Colorado public records requested Judicial Watch.  The OARC/ARCs argument ignores the plain text the C.R.C.P. 31, which does not apply the requested records.  The rule expressly applies information and records Colorado disciplinary proceedings.  Obviously, the OARC/ARCs appointment Independent Bar Counsel Arizona does not concern relate any Colorado disciplinary proceedings.  Nor does concern relate any disciplinary proceeding against Colorado attorneys.  Consequently, C.R.C.P. simply does not apply records regarding the OARC/ARCs appointment Independent Bar Counsel Arizona.  Moreover, even C.R.C.P. were deemed apply and Judicial Watch does not concede that does the OARC/ARC acknowledge that formal ethics Complaint was filed against the targets the OARC/ARCs Arizona investigation February 2011.  ARCs Opening Brief and Exhibit Therefore, even the unlikely event that C.R.C.P. were found apply the particular records requested Judicial Watch, which, again, not include any work product, working files, deliberations, internal communications the OARC/ARC, the rule would require that the records be available the public.  C.R.C.P. 251.31(a). 
Second, the OARC/ARC argue that Rule the Rules the Arizona Supreme Court prevents the disclosure the requested records.  While the assertion that rule the Arizona Supreme Court can prevent the disclosure Colorado public records certainly novel and counterintuitive best, even assuming that Rule might apply and, again, Judicial Watch does not concede that does the OARC/ARC fail demonstrate that Rule prevents the disclosure the particular records requested Judicial Watch. The OARC/ARC appear rely the provision Rule that states that the state bar file shall open the public upon the occurrence certain circumstances.  A.R.S., Sup. Ct. 70(a).  However, OARC/ARC completely fail identify what constitutes the state bar file under Arizona law demonstrate that the records requested Judicial Watch should properly considered part any state bar file. Judicial Watch submits they clearly not.  Again, the records requested Judicial Watch are records about the OARC/ARCs appointment Independent Bar Counsel Arizona, the legal authority the OARC/ARC accept this particular appointment and out-of-state appointments general, and billing records and records any payments the Arizona State Bar. Judicial Watch has not requested any work product, working files, deliberations, internal communications the OARC/ARC. Rather than being part any file the State Bar Arizona, the records requested Judicial Watch are public records the OARC/ARC.  Because the OARC/ARC has failed demonstrate that Rule applies, the Arizona rule does not prevent the disclosure the records requested Judicial Watch. minimum, the unlikely event that the Court determines that Rule applies, Judicial Watch should allowed the opportunity obtain waiver from the respondents.  A.R.S., Sup. Ct. 70(a)(1). 
Third, and finally, the OARC/ARC attempt invoke two exceptions disclosure under CORA. Exceptions CORA must narrowly construed.  Bodelson Denver Publishing Co., P.3d 373, 377 (Colo. App. 2000). The OARC/ARC mention only passing what describes CORAs exception for records complied for law enforcement purpose.  See ARCs Opening Brief (citing  24-72-204(2)(a)(1), C.R.S.). The actual text the exception narrower, however. does not apply all records compiled for law enforcement purpose, but only investigatory files complied for law enforcement purpose.  
One these circumstances waiver confidentiality the respondent the proceeding.  A.R.S., Sup. Ct. 70(a)(1). 
 24-72-204(2)(a)(1), C.R.S. Regardless, OARC/ARC make effort demonstrate that this 
exception applies all, much less that the particular Colorado public records requested Judicial Watch constitute investigatory files complied for law enforcement purpose. Judicial Watch has demonstrated repeatedly, the Colorado public records that requested are not investigatory files.  Records about appointment, the legal authority public entity and public officer, and billing and payment records are not investigatory files complied for law enforcement purposes. addition, the OARC/ARC attempt invoke CORAs catch all substantial harm the public interest exception.  See ARCs Opening Brief (citing  24-72-204(6)(a), C.R.S.). order withhold public record under this particular exception, the custodian the record has the burden prove extraordinary situation and that the information revealed would substantial injury the public.  Bodelson, P.3d 377. Far from satisfying this high burden, the OARC/ARC baldly assert that given the highly-controversial nature the Arizona investigation, premature disclosure any facts could have impaired delayed the investigation. Id. 17. Not only has the OARC/ARC failed prove that extraordinary situation exists, but, particularly given the substantial information about the investigation that has already been disclosed, including press release issued the Arizona Supreme Court (see Judicial Watchs Opening Brief Exhibit and publication the OARC/ARCs Complaint (see ARCs Opening Brief Exhibit C), and given that the ARC himself has given interviews the media about the investigation (see ARCs Opening Brief Exhibit P), was incumbent upon the OARC/ARC substantiate their generalize, broad brush claims harm the public interest they were have any chance satisfying their burden.  Instead, the OARC/ARC fail make any particularized showing how disclosure the requested records would cause substantial harm the public interest Arizona, and they make showing whatsoever how disclosure would cause substantial harm the public interest Colorado.  After all, the OARC/ARC are Colorado public entity and Colorado public official, respectively, and are charged law with regulating, governing, and supervising the legal profession Colorado order protect the people Colorado.  See ARC Opening Brief 
11. anything, the public interest Colorado demands that the records requested Judicial Watch made public order shed light the OARC/ARCs obviously substantial involvement this highly controversial Arizona investigation. The requested records must produced. 

CONCLUSION 
For the reasons set forth Judicial Watchs opening brief and for the additional reasons set forth above, the Court should find that the records requested Judicial Watch are Colorado public records subject disclosure under CORA and order the OARC/ARC disclose Judicial Watch, without further delay, all responsive public records not subject claim withholding. addition, and facilitate the determination whether any responsive public records may lawfully withheld from Judicial Watch under CORA, the Court should order the OARC/ARC produce index all public records responsive Judicial Watchs CORA request that remain subject claim withholding. 
Dated: March 14, 2011    Respectfully submitted, 
(original signature file) James Rouse (Atty. Reg.  10675) ROUSE LAW OFFICE, P.C. 8400 Prentice Ave., Suite 1040 Greenwood Village, 80111-2922 Telephone: 303-694-0694 Fax: 303-793-3678 E-mail:  jrouse@rouseandassoc.com 
(original signature file) Michael Bekesha (D.C. Bar. No. 995749) (Admitted Pro Hac Vice) JUDICIAL WATCH, INC. 425 Third St., S.W., Suite 800 Washington, 20024 Telephone: (202) 646-5172 Fax: (202) 646-5199 E-mail: mbekesha@judicialwatch.org Counsel: 
Paul Orfanedes (D.C. Bar No. 429716) JUDICIAL WATCH, INC.       425 Third St., S.W., Suite 800       Washington, 20024       Telephone: (202) 646-5172       Fax: (202) 646-5199       E-mail: porfanedes@judicialwatch.org 

CERTIFICATE SERVICE hereby certify that this 14th day March, 2011 true and correct copy the above JUDICIAL WATCH, INC.S ANSWER BRIEF was e-filed using LexisNexis File and Serve which will serve the persons below e-mail addressed to: 
JOHN SUTHERS, Attorney General MAURICE KNAIZER, Deputy Attorney General 1525 Sherman Street, 7th Floor Denver, 80203 E-Mail: maurie.knaizer@state.co.us 
(original signature file) James Rouse