President (To Win Colorado) See Full Big Line

(D) Joe Biden*

(R) Donald Trump

80%

20%

CO-01 (Denver) See Full Big Line

(D) Diana DeGette*

(R) V. Archuleta

98%

2%

CO-02 (Boulder-ish) See Full Big Line

(D) Joe Neguse*

(R) Marshall Dawson

95%

5%

CO-03 (West & Southern CO) See Full Big Line

(D) Adam Frisch

(R) Jeff Hurd

50%

50%

CO-04 (Northeast-ish Colorado) See Full Big Line

(R) Lauren Boebert

(D) Trisha Calvarese

90%

10%

CO-05 (Colorado Springs) See Full Big Line

(R) Jeff Crank

(D) River Gassen

80%

20%

CO-06 (Aurora) See Full Big Line

(D) Jason Crow*

(R) John Fabbricatore

90%

10%

CO-07 (Jefferson County) See Full Big Line

(D) B. Pettersen

(R) Sergei Matveyuk

90%

10%

CO-08 (Northern Colo.) See Full Big Line

(D) Yadira Caraveo

(R) Gabe Evans

70%

30%

State Senate Majority See Full Big Line

DEMOCRATS

REPUBLICANS

80%

20%

State House Majority See Full Big Line

DEMOCRATS

REPUBLICANS

95%

5%

Generic selectors
Exact matches only
Search in title
Search in content
Post Type Selectors
May 02, 2011 10:10 PM UTC

Ethics Watch to Gessler: Your "Amicus Brief" Is Showing

  • 17 Comments
  • by: Colorado Pols

According to a release we just received from Colorado Ethics Watch, they are objecting to the filing of an amicus brief from Secretary of State Scott Gessler, in effect on behalf of one of his former election law clients Clear the Bench. As we noted a couple of weeks ago, Gessler’s moves to assist Clear the Bench in its case of committee spending disclosure violations immediately raised eyebrows due to his relationship to the case before his election to office. Although, as we were careful to point out before, Clear the Bench’s problem is not as clear-cut a matter of malfeasance as it is the advice they received, and courts have ruled that Gessler, as the group’s attorney, is the one who needed to be sure they were following the law.

But that former responsibility as the group’s attorney, asserts Ethics Watch today, does not give Gessler the freedom to continue to operate on their behalf as Secretary of State:

On Friday, Colorado Ethics Watch filed with the Colorado Court of Appeals its opposition to the attempt by Secretary of State Scott Gessler to file a brief, purportedly as an amicus curiae (friend of the court) in his official capacity.

Gessler represented Clear the Bench in its unsuccessful defense of a campaign finance complaint filed by Ethics Watch in 2010. Administrative Law Judge Robert Spencer agreed with Ethics Watch that Clear the Bench was required to register with the State of Colorado as a political committee, subject to contribution limits, and rejected Gessler’s argument for Clear the Bench that the group should be considered an issue committee not subject to any contribution limit. Now as Secretary of State, Gessler is using his official position to support his former client’s appeal.

Ethics Watch argues that Gessler’s proposed brief is not a true amicus curiae but rather “an improper attempt to obtain a second chance for a party, Clear The Bench, to argue an issue on which Clear The Bench previously lost.” Ethics Watch also objects to Gessler’s attempt to use “the Attorney General’s office and taxpayer funds to advocate on behalf of his former client, a private entity.”

From just a casual read of the response from Ethics Watch, it does seem like Gessler has no business filing an amicus brief in support of Clear the Bench–as they note from precedent, “a clear precondition of appearing as an amicus curiae or for such a brief being filed is that movant not be a party to the dispute in issue.” Which, as the group’s ex-attorney, he obviously is.

And then we get to the fact that Gessler is Colorado’s elected Secretary of State, which only makes his effort to advocate for his former client with an improper amicus brief, well, more so. Like we said previously, the circumstances might honestly add up to a hardship for Clear the Bench, and Matt Arnold might want to ask Gessler if it was in his group’s best interests for Gessler to represent them right before his election as Secretary of State.

But like these alleged violations, that’s their problem. Gessler is once again showing his vast ethical blind spot, and trying to game both sides of the process on behalf of a former client. It’s really quite audacious if you think about it, but you can’t say we didn’t warn you.

Tweet
Share

Comments

17 thoughts on “Ethics Watch to Gessler: Your “Amicus Brief” Is Showing”

  2. …whose, CPols or Ethic Watch?  Gessler could cross the street and it’d raise those eyebrows, who cares?  CREW, as the leftwing attack organization that it is, has about as much legitimacy as a comparable rightwing attack organization – consider its input accordingly.

    1. The AG as the SoS’s attorney is requesting Gessler be allowed to participate in the appeal as amicus curiae, including allowing Gessler’s brief. We changed the word “by” to “from” above to reflect this small distinction.

      WHEREFORE, the Secretary respectfully requests that the Court grant his motion for leave to participate as amicus curiae and accept for filing his contemporaneously and conditionally filed brief.

      1. In this case the “distinction” is rather large and certainly worth getting right.

        I think you meant to write, “Thanks, Ralphie, it’s fixed now.”

        1. We didn’t mean it to be. Ralphie made a small clarification, though worth making, and we edited to reflect it. Nothing “snotty” about it.

          Unless Gessler didn’t want the brief filed, in which case perhaps it is a “large” distinction after all. Failing that, it is still Gessler’s amicus brief.

                1. WHEREFORE, the Secretary respectfully requests that the Court grant his motion for leave to participate as amicus curiae and accept for filing his contemporaneously and conditionally filed brief.

                  (emphasis mine)

                  “Yes, but did HE write it?!1!?” Next round of bizarre Ralphie pedantics in 3…2…1…

                  Are you feeling okay, dude? You’re usually more reality-based than this.

                  1. I always feel OK when I’m right.

                    Did you read the brief?  Who submitted it?  Who signed it?

                    I’ll shorten up your search.  From Law Week Colorado:

                    The state Attorney General’s office filed the brief for Gessler, with Deputy Attorney General Maurie Knaizer as attorney of record.

                    http://www.lawweekonline.com/2…

                    You can read the brief itself from that link.  It was filed on BEHALF of the SoS, not BY the SoS.

                2. The appeal brief Gessler wants filed now contains the same lame arguments that Gessler couldn’t convince Judge Spencer of the Office of Administrative Courts to accept in the initial proceeding below.  I’d guess Suthers didn’t waste any tax payer time/money on it at AG’s office, had Gessler recycle some of the old stuff, and filed on SoS’s behalf.

              2. Gessler did not write the brief, the Deputy AG did.  While he would have requested it and likely reviewed it (as the client), he would not have written it.  Also, if the AG thought there was a conflict, Gessler could have hired outside counsel rather than the AG’s office.  While I generally think Colo. Ethics Watch is good at keeping their eye on things, this time I think it is overreaching.  Just because the former SoS did not get involved (in rather bizarre fashion), Gessler is actually submitting a brief that protects the Office of SoS – that is the point of his brief.

                1. Like we need to be exaggerating any issue in order to have a reason to campaign against the racist, vote suppressing Gessler?

                  Thanks for summarizing so well.

Leave a Comment

Recent Comments


Posts about

Donald Trump
SEE MORE

Posts about

Rep. Lauren Boebert
SEE MORE

Posts about

Rep. Yadira Caraveo
SEE MORE

Posts about

Colorado House
SEE MORE

Posts about

Colorado Senate
SEE MORE

104 readers online now

Newsletter

Subscribe to our monthly newsletter to stay in the loop with regular updates!