STATE OF COLORADO

OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE COURTS

1525 Sherman Street, 4th Floor
Denver, Colorado 80203

CAMPAIGN INTEGRITY WATCHDOG,

Complainant,

vs.

DENVER COUNTY REPUBLICAN CENTRAL

COMMITTEE,
Respondent. COURT USE ONLY

Attorney for Repondent:

Mario Nicolais, Reg. No. 38589
KBN Law, LLC Case Number: 2017-0006
7830 W. Alameda Ave.
Suite 103-301
Lakewood, CO 80226

Phone Number: 720-773-1526

E-mail: MarioNicolaisEsq@gmail.com

MOTION TO DISMISS &

REQUEST FOR ATTORNEY FEES

Defendant Denver County Republican Central Committee (DCRCC), by and through

undersigned counsel, respectfully submits this Motion to Dismiss& Request for Attorney Fees
(Motion). DCRCC brings this Motion under C.R.C.P. Rule 12(b)(1) (henceforth referenced as
Rule 12(b)(1)) for lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter due to the expiration of the
statute of limitations. In support, DCRCC states as follows:
I. Introduction

Defendant DCRCC is the formal political party for Republicans in the City and County of

Denver. DCRCC has existed in various iterations for many decades and files regular campaign

finance reports with the Colorado Secretary of State (the Secretary). All officers and

representative act on a purely voluntary basis, without salary or other compensation. In 2016,

officers discovered that reports previously filed by past volunteer officers inadvertently omitted

Page 1 of 16
some contributions and expenditures from disclosure. 1 The omitted contributions and

expenditures spanned a time-period between the beginning of 2015 and mid-2016. In an effort to

provide full transparency, even though the 2016 election had already taken place, the DCRCC

officers decided to disclose the omitted contributions and expenditures. The omitted

contributions and expenditures, subsequently disclosed voluntarily by DCRCC, form the basis of

the complaint against DCRCC. However, the Colorado Constitution sets a 180-day statute of

limitations from the day of any alleged violation to bring a complaint. The alleged violation for

all the omitted contributions and expenditures took place well over 180-days before Complainant

Campaign Integrity Watchdog (CIW) filed its complaint (the Complaint).

A. Nature of Complaint

The Complaint brought by CIW is an issue of Colorado campaign finance law. CIW filed

an incomplete Complaint with the Colorado Attorney Generals Office (the AG) on June 7,

2017. CIW subsequently filed an original complaint and cover sheet on June 9, 2017. 2 The AG

subsequently forwarded the case to the Office of Administrative Courts on June 9, 2017. CIW

claims that DCRCC violated multiple disclosure requirements. Under Colorado campaign

finance and election laws, CIW is responsible for prosecuting the case against DCRCC.

B. Issues Presented

1. Colorado Constitution Article XXVII, Section 9(2)(a) requires any person who

believes a violation of campaign finance laws has occurred to file a written complaint no

later than one hundred eighty days after the date of the alleged violation. CIWs claims

1
In its Complaint, CIW references disbursements made by DCRCC; however, the reports filed by a political party
are called contribution and expenditure reports. While expenditure is a term of art under Colorado campaign
finance law and presumably why CIW referred to disbursements instead for sake of clarity, DCRCC notes that
the terms disbursement and expenditure may be referenced interchangeably in this matter without regard to the
precise definition of expenditure used under Colorado campaign finance law.
2
See Complaint, Secretarys forwarding letter to the Office of Administrative Courts.

Page 2 of 16
 involve contributions and expenditures omitted from reports filed more than 180-days

before CIWs Complaint. Are CIWs claims time-barred by the constitutional statute of

limitations?

C. Background

CIWs claims are based on contributions accepted and expenditures made by DCRCC in

2015 and early 2016. The contributions and expenditures were inadvertently omitted from

several of DCRCCs campaign finance reports due in 2015 and through November 2016. After a

thorough review of its books revealed the omitted contributions and expenditures, DCRCC

attempted to amend its prior reports through the Secretarys online campaign finance filing

system, TRACER. DCRCC wished to provide full transparency and disclosure, even for reports

long since filed. Due to the manner in which TRACER operates, the contributions and

expenditures were disclosed in DCRCCs contribution and expenditure report filed December 7,

2016, as later amended on December 26, 2016 (the December 7th Report).

II. Argument

The statute of limitations bars jurisdiction of this court over claims regarding alleged

violations occurring more than 180-days before a party files a complaint. All the contributions

and expenditures forming the basis for CIWs Complaint involve alleged violations more than

180-days in the past. Even the December 7th Report itself fell outside the 180-day statute of

limitations. Consequently, this Court should dismiss all CIW claims for lack of subject matter

jurisdiction.

A. Standard for Motion to Dismiss

Page 3 of 16
 A motion to dismiss properly addresses the question of whether a trial court has subject

matter jurisdiction. 3 The plaintiff has the burden of proving subject matter jurisdiction in

response to a motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction under Rule 12(b)(1). 4 In

considering a motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, a trial court examines the

substance of the claim based on the facts alleged and the relief requested. 5 Under such review,

the trial court is authorized to make appropriate factual findings, although it need not treat the

facts alleged by the non-moving party as true as it would under a motion to dismiss for failure to

state a claim upon which relief can be granted. 6

B. All the contributions and disbursements cited in CIWs complaint fall

outside the 180-day statute of limitations.

The plain language of the Colorado Constitution sets a 180-day statute of limitations

from the date of an alleged violation for a complaint to be filed. The Colorado Constitution time-

bars any complaint based on alleged violations falling outside the 180-day window. Any alleged

violation regarding the omitted contributions and expenditures fell well outside the 180-day

window. Consequently, the Colorado Constitution requires this Court to find CIWs claims time-

barred and dismiss the Complaint.

1. The plain language of the Colorado Constitution unambiguously sets a

180-day statute of limitation from the date of an alleged violation.

Colorado Constitution Article XXVII, Section 9(2)(a) (Section 9(2)(a)) controls

determination of this Courts subject matter jurisdiction in regard to the statute of limitations.

3
Henderson v. City and County of Denver, 2012 COA 152, 21 citing Swieckowski v. City of Fort Collins, 934 P.2d
1389, 1383-84 (Colo. 1997).
4
Associated Governments of Northwest Colorado v. Colorado Public Utilities Comn, 275 P.3d 646, 648 (Colo.
2012).
5
West Colorado Motors, LLC v. General Motors, LLC, 2016 COA 103, 45 quoting Barry v. Bally Gaming, Inc.,
2013 COA 176, 8.
6
Medina v. State, 35 P.3d 443, 451-52 (Colo. 2001) quoting City of Lakewood v. Brace, 919 P.2d 231, 244 (Colo.
1996).

Page 4 of 16
Consequently, this Court is tasked with reviewing the provision and applying the canons of

statutory construction to determine whether CIWs claims are time-barred.

It is settled law that Colorado courts must adopt the statutory construction that best

effectuates the intent of the General Assembly and the purposes of the legislative scheme. 7 To

do so, the Court must adhere to a number of time-honored principles beginning with the plain

meaning of the words employed. 8 Such a review requires the Court to give words and phrases

effect according to their plain and ordinary meaning. 9 Additionally, the Court must give effect

to every word and may not adopt a construction that renders any term superfluous. 10

However, the Court must also regard applicable statutory provision as a whole in order to accord

consistent, harmonious, and sensible effect to all their parts. 11 Where the statutory language is

clear and unambiguous the Court may not resort to other rules of statutory construction or

create an exception to a statute that the plain language does not suggest or demand. 12

The clear and unambiguous language of Section 9(2)(a) bars any complaint filed more

than 180 days after an alleged violation occurred. Specifically, Section 9(2)(a) states:

Any person who believes a violation has occurred may file a written
complaint with the secretary of state no later than one hundred eighty days
after the date of the alleged violation. 13

7
Watson v. Public Service Co. of Colorado, 207 P.3d 860, 863 (Colo.App.2008) quoting State v. Nieto, 993 P.2d
493, 501(Colo. 2006).
8
Slack v. Farmers ins. Exchange, 5 P.3d 280, 284 (Colo.2000) citing Water Rights of Park County Sportsmens
Ranch LLP v. Bargas, 986P.2d 262, 268 (Colo.1999) and C.R.S. 2-4-101 C.R.S. (1999).
9
People v. District Court, Second Judicial District, 713 P.2d 918, 921 (Colo.1986) citing Engelbrecht v. Hartford
Accident & Indemnity Co., 680 P.2d 23, 2231 (Colo.1984); People v. Lewis, 680 P.2d 226 (Colo.1984).
10
Slack v. Farmers Ins. Exchange, 5 P.3d at 284. citing Cherry Hills Resort Dev. Co. v. City of Cherry Hills Village,
790 P.2d 827, 830 (Colo.1990).
11
Hanlen v. Gessler, 2014 CO 24, 56; see also Francen v. Colo. Dept of Revenue, 2014 CO 54, 8 (citing People
in the Interest of W.P., 295 P.3d 514, 519 (Colo. 2013); Moffett v. Life Care Ctrs. Of Am., 219 P.3d 1068, 1072
(Colo. 2009)).
12
Id. citing Vaughn v. McMinn, 945 P.2d 404, 408 (Colo.1997) and Scoogins v. Unigard Ins. Co., 869 P.2d 202, 205
(Colo.1994).
13
Colo. Const. art. XXVIII 9(2)(a) (2017), emphasis added.

Page 5 of 16
Consequently, the 180-day constitutional statute of limitations begins to run on the date that a

violation is alleged to have occurred. For campaign finance purposes, the date of an alleged

violation for failure to report is the date when an omitted contribution or expenditures should

have been disclosed. 14 It is not based on the date a contribution was actually accepted or an

expenditure was actually made, but rather when it should have been reported. 15 For example, an

expenditure made by a political party on May 3, 2015, should have been reported on the next

regularly filed contribution and expenditure report due July 15, 2015. 16 Failure to disclose the

expenditure on that report immediately creates a violation. A complaint filed on July 16, 2015

for failure to report the expenditure would consequently be filed one day after the date of the

alleged violation.

2. All the contributions and expenditures related to CIWs complaint fall

outside the 180-day statute of limitations.

The alleged violations listed by CIW all fall outside the 180-day statute of limitations in

Section 9(2)(a). CIW detailed the specific contributions and expenditures forming the basis of its

Complaint in paragraphs 11(a)-11(bb) and 12(a)-12(v). In each instance, CIW cites the date

DCRCC accepted a contribution or made a disbursement; yet CIW neglects to cite the date when

the contributions or expenditures should have been disclosed on a prior report. This is a critical

omission. Because the statute of limitations begins running on the date when the alleged

violation occurred, and because violations for failure to report occur on the date when omitted

14
In the Matter of the Complaint Filed by Lang Sias and Mario Nicolais Regarding Alleged Campaign and Political
Finance Vioaltions by Christian Coalition of Colorado, National Family Coalition, Colorado Family Values and
Colorado Citizens for Right to Work (Sias v. CCC), OS 2014-0043, Final Agency Decision, p. 4-7, 9.
15
Id.
16
See attached Exhibit A - CO SOS Campaign and Political Finance 2015 county Frequent and Annual Filing
Calendar.

Page 6 of 16
contributions or expenditures should have been reported, it is critical to know the date when the

contributions and expenditures forming the basis of the Complaint should have been reported.

CIWs omission is easily rectified. By reviewing the dates for each individual

contribution and disbursement listed by CIW and cross-referencing the Secretarys campaign and

political finance calendars (attached and incorporated hereto as Exhibit A for 2015 and Exhibit

B for 2016), the dates the omitted contributions and disbursements should have been reported are

easily computed. The 180-day statute of limitations from each of those reports is also easily

computed. DCRCC undertook this analysis in the attached Table 1 DCRCC Contributions

Listed in CIW Complaint and Table 2 DCRCC Contributions Listed in CIW Complaint.

As Table 1 and Table 2 demonstrate, the statute of limitations for the proper report date and

hence, the date of any alleged violation for failure to report expired well before CIW filed its

Complaint. The latest proper report date when any of the omitted contributions or

disbursements should have been reported was October 18, 2016. The 180-day statute of

limitations on this report expired on April 16, 2017 (actually April 14, 2017 due to April 16th

falling on a Sunday). Consequently, the statute of limitations expired nearly two months prior to

CIW filing its Complaint on June 6, 2017.

Significantly, CIW is very familiar with the statute of limitations. As discussed in more

detail below, it is a part of CIWs standard procedure to file cases in close proximity to the

statute of limitations expiration. CIW does so with such regularity that Courts have found CIW

claims time-barred on multiple occasions. In two recent decisions, two different administrative

law judges (ALJ) dismissed multiple claims by CIW due to its failure to timely file

complaints. 17

17
Campaign Integrity Watchdog v. Dan Thurlow/55, OS 2016-0027, Decision, p. 3-4; Campaign Integrity
Watchdog v. Friends and Neighbors for Dan Pabon, OS 2017-0004, Decision, p. 3-8.

Page 7 of 16
 3. Even the December 7th Report itself falls outside the 180-day statute of
limitations.

While all the contributions and expenditures listed by CIW fall well outside the 180-day

statute of limitations as discussed above, even the December 7th Report itself falls outside the

statute of limitations. While the report was not due until December 8, 2016, DCRCC originally

filed the report on December 7, 2016. 18 However, CIW didnt file its Complaint until June 6,

2017, or 181-days later. Consequently, CIWs claims have been time-barred, even in regard to

the December 7th Report.

III. Request for Attorneys Fees

DCRCC requests costs and attorney fees under C.R.S. 1-45-111.5 and 24-4-105(4),

and C.R.C.P. 11. CIWs Complaint lacked substantial justification while subjecting DCRCC to

the costs of litigation in order to defend itself in court. As discussed above, CIWs Complaint

lacked any basis in fact or law. Furthermore, CIW brought this action for the sole purpose of

harassing DCRCC and its officers. Because the litigation instituted by CIW was frivolous,

groundless, and vexatious, this Court should grant DCRCCs request for attorney fees.

DCRCC requests a hearing on the amount of attorney fees to be awarded.

A. Legal Standard

Under C.R.S. 24-4-105(4), a Court may award attorney fees for abuses of discovery

procedures or as otherwise provided under the Colorado Rules of Civil Procedure. 19

Consequently, it may award fees under both C.R.S. 1-45-111.5 and C.R.C.P. 11.

18
See Complaint Exhibit 2, pg. 1.
19
C.R.S. 24-4-105(4).

Page 8 of 16
 Under C.R.S. 1-45-111.5(2) a respondent in an administrative action shall recover

attorney fees for defending any claim that is substantially frivolous, substantially groundless, or

substantially vexatious. 20 Specifically:

A party in any action brought to enforce the provisions of Article XXVIII of the
state constitution or of this Article shall be entitled to the recovery of the party's
reasonable attorney fees and costs from any attorney or party who has brought or
defended the action, either in whole or in part, upon a determination by the office
of administrative courts that the action, or any part thereof, lacked substantial
justification or that the action, or any part thereof, was interposed for delay or
harassment or if it finds that an attorney or party unnecessarily expanded the
proceeding by other improper conduct, including, but not limited to, abuses of
discovery procedures available under the Colorado rules of civil procedure.
Notwithstanding any other provision of this subsection (2), no attorney fees may
be awarded under this subsection (2) unless the court or administrative law judge,
as applicable, has first considered the provisions of section 13-17-102 (5) and (6),
C.R.S. For purposes of this subsection (2), "lacked substantial justification"
means substantially frivolous, substantially groundless, or substantially vexatious.

Under well-established law, [a] claim is frivolous if the proponent can present no rational

argument based on the evidence or law in support of the claim. A claim is groundless if the

allegations in the complaint, while sufficient to survive a motion to dismiss for failure to state a

claim, are not supported by any credible evidence. 21 Finally, a vexatious claim is one brought

or maintained in bad faith to annoy or harass, and may include conduct that is arbitrary,

abusive, stubbornly litigious, or disrespectful of truth. 22

The standards for C.R.C.P. 11 (Rule 11) are similar. Rule 11 imposes four

independent duties upon signing a pleading:

(1) before a pleading is filed there must be a reasonable inquiry into the facts and the
law;

20
C.R.S. 1-45-111.5(2) (2014).
21
Remote Switch Systems, Inc. v. Delangis, 126 P.3d 269, 275 (Colo. App. 2005), cert. denied, 2006 WL 380434;
see also Schmidt Const. Co. v. Becker-Johnson Corp., 817 P.2d 233, 235 (Colo. App. 1994).
22
Engel v. Engel, 902 P.2d 442, 446 (Colo. App. 1995); see also Bd. of Commrs of Boulder v. Eason, 976 P.2d 271,
273-72 (Colo. App. 1998); Bockar v. Patterson, 899 P.2d 233, 235 (Colo. App. 1994).

Page 9 of 16
 (2) based on this investigation, the signer must reasonably believe the pleading is well
grounded in fact;

(3) the legal theory asserted in the pleading must be based on existing legal principles
or a good faith argument for the modification of existing law; and

(4) the pleading must not be filed for the purpose of causing delay, harassment, or an
increase in the cost of litigation. 23

While Rule 11 specifically imposes these duties upon the signature of an attorney, it also

recognizes that a party who is not represented by an attorney shall sign his pleadings.

Consequently, the duties regarding pleadings should be imposed on unrepresented parties

signing pleadings as well or a substantial loophole in the law would be created allowing

parties to evade fundamental obligations and protections of the legal system. This position is

supported by several prior rulings in divisions of this court. 24 In particular, sanctions have

been previously issued against CIW and its principal, Matt Arnold (Arnold). In CIW v.

CFBF, OS 2014-0004, the administrative law judge (ALJ) found CIWs claims were

substantially groundless, 25 noted that Arnold had brought no fewer than 35 fair campaign

practice act complaints 26 (as of the date of this Motion to Dismiss, the number is now 73),

and awarded fees against Arnold and CIW. 27 Similarly, an ALJ sanctioned Arnold for

violating the ALJs orders, noted that Arnold had brought 68 complaints, and awarded

attorney fees against Arnold. 28

23
Stearns Mgmt. Co. v. Missouri River Servs. Inc., 70 P.3d 629, 632 (Colo. App. 2003) citing Maul v. Shaw, 843
P.2d 139, 141-42 (Colo. App. 1992).
24
In the Matter of the Complaint Filed by Allen M. Mac Williams Regarding Alleged Violations of the Fair
Campaign Practices Act by Donetta Davidson and the Committee to Elect Donetta Davidson (Williams v.
Davidson), OS2003-024 (Office of Admin. Cts. Mar. 2003), Order Granting Request for Attorney Fees, available
at http://www.sos.state.co.us/pubs/elections/CampaignFinance/complaint/2003/OS2003-024.pdf.
25
In the Matter of the Complaint Filed by Campaign Integrity Watchdog Regarding Alleged Campaign and Political
Finance Violations by Coloradans for a Better Future (CIW v. CFBF), OS 2014-0004, (Office of Admin. Cts.
Feb. 2, 2015), available at http://tracer.sos.colorado.gov/PublicSite/Reporting/IFrameImagePopUp.aspx Order
Awarding Attorney Fees, p. 2-3 (a copy of which can be provided at the Courts request).
26
Id. at p. 4.
27
Id. at p. 6.
28
Campaign Integrity Watchdog v. Colorado Pioneer Action and Colorado Right Now, OS 2016-0014 & OS 2016-

Page 10 of 16
 Vexations claims subject to an award of attorney fees under Rule 11 include a wide

array of potential behavior. While no single standard exists, Colorado courts have stated that

[a] vexatious claim is one brought or maintained in bad faith. 29 The courts have further

elaborated that such bad faith claims may include, but are not limited to, conduct that is

arbitrary, vexatious, abusive, stubbornly litigious, aimed at unwarranted delay, or

disrespectful of truth or accuracy. 30

B. CIWs claims were both frivolous and groundless.

As discussed above, CIWs Complaint is both legally and factually unsustainable.

Because the 180-day statute of limitations expired for all the cited contributions and expenditures

well before CIW filed its Complaint, CIW has neither a legal nor factual basis for bringing its

claims against DCRCC. Consequently, this Court should sanction CIW by awarding DCRCC its

costs and attorney fees.

C. CIWs Actions Were Vexatious.

CIW has engaged in impermissible conduct that is arbitrary, abusive, stubbornly

litigious, or disrespectful of truth 31 throughout this matter. First and foremost, Arnold has

admitted to bringing this Complaint in retribution for comments made by an officer of

DCRCC. As detailed in the attached and incorporated Exhibit C - Affidavit of Jake Viano

and Exhibit D - Affidavit of Jeff Krump, Arnold engaged in a telephone conversation with

DCRCC Chairman Jake Viano (Viano) in the presence of DCRCC Vice-Chairman Jeff

0030 (Office of Admin. Cts. Apr. 26, 2017), available at

http://tracer.sos.colorado.gov/PublicSite/Reporting/IFrameImagePopUp.aspx, Decision, p. 18-19.
29
Mitchell v. Ryder, 104 P.3d 316, 321 (Colo. App. 2004); citing W. United Realty, Inc. v. Isaacs, 679 P.2d 1063
(Colo. 1984).
30
Mitchell v. Ryder, 104 P.3d 316, 321 (Colo. App. 2004); citing City of Holyoke v. Schlachter Farms R.L.L.P., 22
P.3d 960 (Colo. App. 2001).
31
Engel v. Engel, 902 P.2d 442, 446 (Colo. App. 1995); see also Bd. of Commrs of Boulder v. Eason, 976 P.2d 271,
273-72 (Colo. App. 1998); Bockar v. Patterson, 899 P.2d 233, 235 (Colo. App. 1994).

Page 11 of 16
Krump (Krump). During the conversation, Arnold told Viano, Jake, the only reason I

filed this complaint is because one of your vice chairs said fuck you to me. Forcing

DCRCC to defend this lawsuit because Arnold took offense to the comments of one

individual is patently abusive, litigious, and aimed at unwarranted annoyance and harassment

of DCRCC and its officers.

CIW has also maintained this lawsuit despite requests from the DCRCC to voluntarily

dismiss its claims and despite being informed during the telephone case management

conferences that DCRCC believed CIWs claims were time-barred. As a part of its pursuit,

CIW has engaged in discovery requests in violation of the Colorado Civil Rules of Procedure

and attempted to subject DCRCC to time-consuming and costly production requests

unnecessary to prove its factual claims. These actions again highlight CIWs attempts to

annoy and harass DCRCC and its officers.

While CIWs actions against DCRCC seem particularly abusive, they are far from

irregular for CIW. CIW publicly describes this litigious practice as political guerilla legal

warfare (a.k.a. Lawfare) 32 intended to cause political opponents to be distracted, forced to

divert resources (time & money), and get smeared in the (often-complicit) media. 33

Consequently, many CIW actions follow the same pattern: complaints based on minor errors are

filed in close proximity to the 180-day statutes of limitations expiration (Section 9(2)(a) and 1-

45-111.5(1.5)(a) C.R.S. (2016)). Because penalties imposed under 1-45-111.5(1.5)(c) C.R.S.

(2017) accrue at a rate of fifty dollars per day, the longer the period between the alleged

violation and the complaint, the greater the penalty. Consequently, by filing in close proximity to

32
Matt Arnold, Turning the Tables Fighting Back against the Lefts Lawfare in Colorado. Common Sense News
(Feb. 2014), B-7, https://issuu.com/avinnola/docs/csn_digital_press_ed_feb_14
33
Id., B-4.

Page 12 of 16
the statute of limitations, CIW is effectively maximizing potential penalties against political

opponents..

For example, in CIW v. Colo. Republican Party PAC, 34 , CIW filed its complaint based

on missing information related to two three dollar contributions. 35 CIW filed its complaint

exactly 180 days after the committees report had been filed, leading CIW to seek a $36,000

penalty. 36 The same pattern also played out in a set of concurrent lawsuits brought by CIW

against four candidate committees. CIW filed complaints against McLachlan for Colorado 37;

Friends of Joe Salazar 38; the Committee to Elect Brittany Pettersen 39; and Dave Young for

Colorado. 40 In each instance, CIW filed the complaints on September 23, 2015, or 154 days

after the committees allegedly deficient reports were filed on April 15, 2015. In each complaint,

CIW alleged a failure to report contributions to pay for penalties or legal services incurred by the

committees in relation to prior complaints brought by CIW. Importantly, because CIW was

directly involved in the first set of complaints that led to the second set, it had reason to review

the reports and file the second set of complaints soon after the reports were filed in April.

Instead, it filed all four complaints over 150 days after the reports had been filed and the

potential penalties had nearly been maximized.

34
Campaign Integrity Watchdog v. Colo. Republican Party Political Action Committee (CIW v. Colo. Republican
Party PAC) OS 2016-0002 (Office of Admin. Cts. Apr. 12, 2016) available at http://tracer.sos.colorado.gov
/PublicSite/SearchPages/ComplaintDetail.aspx?ID=389.
35
Id., Findings of Fact #4 and #10
36
Id., Findings of Fact #12.
37
Campaign Integrity Watchdog v. McLachlan for Colorado, OS 2015-0015 (Office of Admin. Cts. Nov. 30, 2015)
available at http://tracer.sos.colorado.gov/PublicSite/SearchPages/ComplaintDetail.aspx?ID=376)
38
Campaign Integrity Watchdog v. Friends of Joe Salazar, OS 2015-0019 (Office of Admin. Cts. Dec. 3, 2015)
available at http://tracer.sos.colorado.gov/PublicSite/SearchPages/ComplaintDetail.aspx?ID=377)
39
Campaign Integrity Watchdog v. Committee to Elect Brittany Pettersen, OS 2015-0018 (Office of Admin. Cts.
Jan. 13, 2016) available at http://tracer.sos.colorado.gov/PublicSite/SearchPages/ComplaintDetail.aspx?ID=378)
40
Campaign Integrity Watchdog v. Dave Young for Colorado, OS 2015-0017 (Office of Admin. Cts. Jan. 13, 2016)
available at http://tracer.sos.colorado.gov/PublicSite/SearchPages/ComplaintDetail.aspx?ID=379)

Page 13 of 16
 Most disconcerting, CIW regularly leverages the cost of litigation and threat of onerous

penalties to profit through settlements with the committees he brings suit against. In a case

against the Colorado Republican Committee, CIW offered to settle the case in exchange for

payment of $10,000. 41 An independent expenditure committee targeted by CIW, Protect and

Defend Colorado, listed a payment of $4,500 to CIW as a Settlement in its campaign finance

reports. 42

Though CIW has not requested any settlement payments from DCRCC, its claims fit the

same litigious and abusive behavior meant to annoy and harass DCRCC. The Court should

sanction the behavior of CIW and Arnold by awarding attorney fees and costs for this

vexatious behavior.

D. CIW is not exempt from attorney fees under C.R.S. 13-17-102.

At the time of this filing, CIW has not voluntarily withdrawn its Complaint under C.R.S.

13-17-102(5), even though it reasonably should have known it could not prevail on its claims.

Additionally, because CIW chose to continue this litigation well beyond the time when the

relevant facts were publicly available, it has substantially increased the resources in time and

cost that DCRCC has incurred in relation to this case. CIWs continued prosecution only serves

to drive those costs higher.

The Court also should not relieve CIW from attorney fees under C.R.S. 13-17-102(6).

Though Arnold is not an attorney, he has consciously chosen to represent CIW in this case, citing

to specific statutes allowing him to do so. 43 In fact, Arnold has brought sixty nine (69) campaign

41
Corey Hutchins, Watchdog or bully? How a $10,000 fine led to a GOP blowup, Colo. Indep. (Feb. 5, 2016),
http://www.coloradoindependent.com/157936/watchdog-or-bully-how-a-10000-fine-led-to-a-gop-blowup.
42
See http://tracer.sos.colorado.gov/PublicSite/SearchPages/ExpenditureDetail.aspx
?SeqID=583522&filingid=207719 ($4,500 settlement paid on 2/2/2016 to CIW by Protect and Defend Colorado).
43
Complaint, 1-8.

Page 14 of 16
finance complaints on behalf of CIW since January 2014. Arnold is a sophisticated consumer of

legal goods and reasonably should have known that his actions were substantially frivolous,

substantially groundless, or substantially vexatious. Neither Arnold nor CIW present a

sympathetic case of a non-attorney private citizen filing a complaint as contemplated in

Williams v. Davidson. 44 CIW and Arnold are clearly well aware of the burdens they must meet

under Article XXVIII.

WHEREFORE, Respondent Denver County Republican Central Committee requests

that the Court enter judgment in favor of Respondent, against Complainant Campaign Integrity
Watchdog, and enter an ORDER:

A. Granting Respondents Motion to Dismiss;

B. Granting Respondents request for attorney fees against CIW and Arnold;
C. Setting a hearing date to determine the amount of attorney fees and costs to be
paid; and
C. Directing such other further relief as this Court deems appropriate.

Dated this 28th day of July 2017.

KBN LAW, LLC

s/ Mario Nicolais
Mario Nicolais
Attorney for Respondent Denver County Republican Central
Committee

44
Williams v. Davidson, p. 5.

Page 15 of 16
 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on this 28th day of July 2017, I duly filed the above Motion to
Dismiss & Request for Attorney Fees via email, addressed to:

Campaign Integrity Watchdog

P.O. Box 372464
Denver, CO 80237
Phone: 303-995-5533
Email: campaignintegritywatchdog@gmail.com

KBN Law, LLC

s/Mario Nicolais
Mario Nicolais

Page 16 of 16
 January 2015 CAMPAIGN AND POLITICAL FINANCE July 2015

S M T W T F S 2015 COUNTY FREQUENT AND ANNUAL FILING CALENDAR S M T W T F S

1 2 3 1 2 3 4
Frequent calendar applies to (Refer to Campaign Finance Rule 17):
4 5 6 7 8 9 10 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Candidates or candidate committees whose office will appear 12 13 14 15 16 17 18
18 19 20 21 22 23 24
on the November 3, 2015 Coordinated Election ballot 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
25 26 27 28 29 30 31 Issue committees whose issue attempts access to or appears on 26 27 28 29 30 31
February 2015 the November 3, 2015 Coordinated Election ballot
August 2015
October
S M T W T F S S M T W T F S
13 21st Day before the Election Report covers:
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
October 30, 2014 through October 8, 2015 1
8 9 10 11 12 13 14 OR 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
15 16 17 18 19 20 21 November 30, 2014 through October 8, 2015 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
22 23 24 25 26 27 28 30 Friday before the Election Report covers October 9, 2015 through October 25, 16 17 18 19 20 21 22
2015 23 24
30 31 25 26 27 28 29
March 2015 November September 2015
3 2015 Coordinated Election
S M T W T F S S M T W T F S
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
December
1 2 3 4 5
3 Post - Election Report covers October 26, 2015 through November 28, 2015
8 9 10 11 12 13 14 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
15 16 17 18 19 20 21 13 14 15 16 17 18 19
22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Infrequent/Annual calendar applies to (Refer to Campaign Finance 20 21 22 23 24 25 26
29 30 31
Rule 17):
27 28 29 30
April 2015 Political Committees October 2015

S M T W T F S Small Donor Committees S M T W T F S

1 2 3 4 527 Political Organizations 1 2 3
5 6 7 8 9 10 11 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Political Parties
12 13 14 15 16 17 18 11 12 13 14 15 16 17
Independent Expenditure Committees
19 20 21 22 23 24 25 18 19 20 21 22 23 24
26 27 28 29 30 Candidates and candidate committees whose office does not
25 26 27 28 29 30 31
appear on the November 3, 2015 Coordinated Election ballot
May 2015 November 2015
Issue committees whose issue will not attempt access to or
S M T W T F S S M T W T F S
appear on the November 3, 2015 Coordinated Election ballot
1 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
November
3 4 5 6 7 8 9 2 Annual Report covers: 8 9 10 11 12 13 14
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 October 30, 2014 through October 28, 2015 15 16 17 18 19 20 21
17 18 19 20 21 22 23 OR
22 23 24 25 26 27 28
24
25 26 27 28 29 30 November 30, 2014 through October 28, 2015
31 29 30
June 2015 December 2015
Day or Date affected by holiday or weekend
S M T W T F S S M T W T F S
1 2 3 4 5 6 The following types of reports are not required in odd calendar years: 1 2 3 4 5
7 8 9 10 11 12 13 24 Hour Notice of Major Contributor 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
48 Hour Notice of Independent Expenditure
14 15 16 17 18 19 20 13 14 15 16 17 18 19
Electioneering Communication Reports
21 22 23 24 25 26 27 20 21 22 23 24 25 26
28 29 30 Published by the Colorado Secretary of State 27 28 29 30 31
www.sos.state.co.us
Campaign Finance Support Team:
Election Day Report Due Dates Tel: (303) 894-2200 ext. 6383

Exhibit A
Email: cpfhelp@sos.state.co.us Rev. 12/2014
Reporting: TRACER.sos.colorado.gov
 January 2016 CAMPAIGN AND POLITICAL FINANCE July 2016

S M T W T F S 2016 COUNTY FREQUENT AND ANNUAL FILING CALENDAR S M T W T F S

1 2 1 2
Frequent calendar Refer to Campaign Finance Rule 17:
3 4 5 6 7 8 9 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Candidates and candidate committees whose office will appear on
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 the 2016 Primary or General Election ballot 10 11 12 13 14 15 16
17 18 19 20 21 22 23 Issue committees whose issue attempts access to or appears on 17 18 19 20 21 22 23
24
the 2016 General Election ballot
25 26 27 28 29 30 24
25 26 27 28 29 30
31
Political Parties 31

February 2016 Political Committees August 2016

S M T W T F S
Small Donor Committees
S M T W T F S
527 Political Organizations
1 2 3 4 5 6 1 2 3 4 5 6
Independent Expenditure Committees
7 8 9 10 11 12 13 June 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
14 15 16 17 18 19 20 7 21st Day before the Primary Election, Report covers: 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
21 22 23 24 25 26 27 October 29, 2015 through June 2, 2016 21 22 23 24 25 26 27
OR
28 29 28 29 30 31
November 29, 2015 through June 2, 2016
March 2016 24 Friday before the Primary Election - Report covers June 3, 2016 through September 2016
June 19, 2016
S M T W T F S S M T W T F S
28 Primary Election
1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3
July
6 7 8 9 10 11 12 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
28 30th Day after the Primary Election - Report covers June 20, 2016 through
13 14 15 16 17 18 19 July 23, 2016 11 12 13 14 15 16 17
20 21 22 23 24 25 26 18 19 20 21 22 23 24
October
27 28 29 30 31 18 21st Day before the General Election, Report covers July 24, 2016 through 25 26 27 28 29 30
April 2016 October 13, 2016
October 2016

S M T W T F S
November
S M T W T F S
4 Friday before the General Election - Report covers October 14, 2016 through
1 2 October 30, 2016 1
3 4 5 6 7 8 9 8 General Election 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 December 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
17 18 19 20 21 22 23 8 30th Day after the General Election - Report covers October 31, 2016 through
16 17 18 19 20 21 22
December 3, 2016
24 25 26 27 28 29 30 23 24
25 26 27 28 29
30 31

May 2016 This calendar does not include the 24 Hour Notice of Major Contributor or the 48 Hour November 2016
Notice of Independent Expenditure reports that may be required based on certain
S M T W T F S activity. The period during which these reports may be required begins 30 days before S M T W T F S
the primary and general election and ends the day before the election. Electioneering
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 communications reports may also be required beginning 30 days before a Primary and 1 2 3 4 5
8 9 10 11 12 13 14 60 days before a General. Refer to the Campaign Finance manual for more information.
6 7 8 9 10 11 12
15 16 17 18 19 20 21 13 14 15 16 17 18 19
Infrequent/Annual calendar Refer to Campaign Finance Rule 17:
22 23 24 25 26 27 28 20 21 22 23 24 25 26
Candidates and candidate committees whose office will not appear
29 30 31 on the Primary or General Election Ballot in 2016 27 28 29 30
June 2016 Issue committees whose issue will not attempt access to or appear December 2016
on the November 8, 2016 General Election ballot
S M T W T F S S M T W T F S
November
1 2 3 4 1 2 3
1 Annual Report covers:
5 6 7 8 9 10 11 October 29, 2015 through October 27, 2016 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
12 13 14 15 16 17 18 OR
11 12 13 14 15 16 17
19 20 21 22 23 24 25
November 29, 2015 through October 27, 2016
18 19 20 21 22 23 24
26 27 28 29 30 Published by the Colorado Secretary of State 25 26 27 28 29 30 31
www.sos.state.co.us
Campaign Finance Support Team:
Election Day Report Due Dates Tel: (303) 894-2200 ext. 6383
Email: cpfhelp@sos.state.co.us
Exhibit B
Rev. 01/2016
Reporting: TRACER.sos.colorado.gov
Exhibit C
Exhibit C
 Exhibit D

BEFORE THE CITFICE OF ADMIN{STRATfiTE COITRTS

STATE OF COI"CIR.ADO

Case }r[o- 2*17-{}0S6

INTTTE h&ATTEfi. OF T}{E CO&dPLATb.{T FILED BY CA&4PAIGN INFE{iRTTY

TATCHDOG (CIVT} R.EGARSTNG AI"LEGEB CAEiPAIGh{ A}-{D POLITICAL PI}\{A}.[CE
WOLATT*I{S BY "llltr RECISTEREB h{OF{PR*FIT CSRPORATTOF{ DENVER CO{nrilTY
REPTfBLICAIq CENTRAT. C&hdhdrTTEE {DCRCC}

A-B"FII}AVTT OS DETWER CCItnNTY RMPUBI-ICITF{ CEIYIRAL COhflhf,ITfruE

VICE-CHAIRJEFT KR{JBf,P

I, JeffKrump, declme rmder eefifiltlz of pmjury that the foXlor*,iag statements arc true and

correct to the best of my kaowtredge, isfornration md belief:

1. I am over eighteem years of agen am c,cnape,tent ttr rnake this ltffidavi[ and have

perenal kamwledge cf the fasts stated in this ltffidalrit" I would teffi, kuthfidly to the f,acts set

forth in this .A.ffidavit lf celled rryren ta do so.

2- { arn the \rice-ffiairman of the Dealrer Caunty Repub,lican Centra} Cornmrittes

{'"DCRCC*)"

3" 0* the afternaou cf Juue tr6dq 2&l?,I was present with Jacoh
6T*e?e
Viarec

('lfiano",} when Yiano spoke wit&hr{atthevrArnold {iAmm}d}. t&e Executftre Director of

Camnpsigp lntegriry Watchdog {*C[W'"] outhe tolephone. tsecause the Yiano usedthe

spkerphone firlrc.tioa while speaki$g with Arnold, I cCIuld hear tN:th ends of,{he cqrnversatien-

4- fiteriag the telryhcne ccnferemce, Arumtrd stded r'.nake, tfue *nllt reet#Im {filed t&is

eomplaiwl is heefiu,se orue af y*wr rriee chsirs s*id -FUCK Y{}A' t$ ?ffe" - I believe tlre vice-chair

he was referring tc uras Kristina Csok

 Exhibit D

Furfher affiant sayeth xaught

Datedt**s 2?day of

First Vice Chair, DCRCC

AfEant

OF Cotocadr-'
STATHDISTRICT )
COLNTYOF ftrc.panoe. , '*'
lN.chowledgd sutscriUd, and surorn to before rle on this)l day of
24fi.

r
P<We'c- L*,
It{otary Public

REBECCAGROGAN
i\{y Commission Expires: Rlc \ I
r}r1}0
NOTARY PUBLIC
STATE OF COLORADO
NOTARY lD 20164005742
MY COMMISSION EXPIRES FEBRUARY
11,2020
Table 1 - DCRCC Contributions Listed in CIW Complaint

Claim Contribution Proper Report SOL on Report Contributor Name Contrib.

Number Date Date Amount
11(a) 04/06/15 11/02/15 04/30/16 A. Barry Brandt $ 100.00
11(b) 06/12/16 06/24/16 12/21/16 Judith Case $ 50.00
11(c) 10/07/16 10/18/16 04/16/17 Fletcher Cole $ 25.00
11(d) 12/29/15 06/07/16 12/04/16 Frank DeFilippo $ 50.00
11(e) 04/06/15 11/02/15 04/30/16 Osborne Jefferson Dykes $ 50.00
11(f) 06/15/15 11/02/15 04/30/16 Osborne Jefferson Dykes $ 75.00
11(g) 06/08/16 06/24/16 12/21/16 Celeste Gamache $ 25.00
11(h) 10/07/16 10/18/16 04/16/17 George Gramer $ 205.00
11(i) 06/16/16 06/24/16 12/21/16 Brenda Harms $ 25.00
11(j) 06/12/16 06/24/16 12/21/16 Sara Holmes $ 50.00
11(k) 11/16/15 06/07/16 12/04/16 John Kidd $ 25.00
11(l) 12/16/15 06/07/16 12/04/16 John Kidd $ 25.00
11(m) 01/19/16 06/07/16 12/04/16 John Kidd $ 25.00
11(n) 02/16/16 06/07/16 12/04/16 John Kidd $ 25.00
11(o) 03/16/16 06/07/16 12/04/16 John Kidd $ 25.00
11(p) 04/20/16 06/07/16 12/04/16 John Kidd $ 25.00
11(q) 05/16/16 06/07/16 12/04/16 John Kidd $ 25.00
11(r) 12/04/15 06/07/16 12/04/16 Marilyn Marks $ 100.00
11(s) 06/13/16 06/24/16 12/21/16 Susan Moore $ 25.00
11(t) 04/06/15 11/02/15 04/30/16 Flo Nath $ 100.00
11(u) 10/07/16 10/18/16 04/16/17 Janet O'Callaghan $ 100.00
11(v) 06/06/16 06/24/16 12/21/16 Joan Poston $ 50.00
11(w) 10/07/16 10/18/16 04/16/17 Jennifer Qualtieri $ 35.00
11(x) 02/03/16 06/07/16 12/04/16 Daniel Ritchie $ 500.00
11(y) 04/06/15 11/02/15 04/30/16 Robert Seklemian $ 50.00
11(z) 04/06/15 11/02/15 04/30/16 Paul Steinhauer $ 100.00
11(aa) 10/07/16 10/18/16 04/16/17 Jacob Viano $ 20.00
11(bb) 04/06/15 11/02/15 04/30/16 Fred Wulff $ 500.00
Table 2 - DCRCC Disbursements Listed in CIW Complaint

Claim Disbursement Proper Report SOL on Report Disbursement Payee Disburse.

Number Date Date Amount
12(a) 05/27/16 06/07/16 12/04/16 1660 S. Albion LLC $ 593.75
12(b) 05/19/15 06/07/16 12/04/16 All My Sons Moving $ 483.84
12(c) 10/17/16 11/04/16 05/03/17 Colorado Chinese News $ 860.00
12(d) 06/08/16 06/24/16 12/21/16 Colorado Dragon Boat Festiv $ 900.00
12(e) 10/05/16 10/18/16 04/16/17 Colorado Liquor Mart $ 21.58
12(f) 02/19/15 11/02/15 04/30/16 Cube Smart $ 191.00
12(g) 05/27/16 06/07/16 12/04/16 Denver GOP Municipal Accou $ 285.00
12(h) 05/01/15 11/02/15 04/30/16 King Soopers $ 26.16
12(i) 10/11/16 10/18/2016 04/16/17 Meetup.Com $ 89.94
12(j) 05/02/15 11/02/15 04/30/16 Mile High Catering $ 275.00
12(k) 10/17/16 11/04/16 05/03/17 Office Depot $ 37.43
12(l) 10/26/16 11/04/16 05/03/17 Office Depot $ 43.05
12(m) 04/29/15 11/02/15 04/30/16 Party City $ 86.61
12(n) 05/01/15 11/02/15 04/30/16 Party City $ 45.16
12(o) 05/01/15 11/02/15 04/30/16 Staples $ 146.85
12(p) 10/03/16 10/18/16 04/16/17 Tavern Hospitality Group $ 70.00
12(q) 10/05/16 10/18/16 04/16/17 Tavern Hospitality Group $ 140.39
12(r) 10/11/16 10/18/16 04/16/17 Tavern Hospitality Group $ 210.39
12(s) 10/18/16 11/04/16 05/03/17 Tavern Hospitality Group $ 80.00
12(t) 10/20/16 11/04/16 05/03/17 Tavern Hospitality Group $ 188.54
12(u) 10/03/16 10/18/16 04/16/17 Tower 1660 $ 593.75
12(v) 10/17/16 11/04/16 05/03/17 Weekly Focus $ 450.00