STATE OF COLORADO

OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE COURTS

CASE NO.OS20160024
Administrative State Court
1525 Sherman Street
Denver, Colorado 80203
Web page: www.Colorado.gov/OAC
Phone 303-866-2000

PETER COULTER,
Complainant,
v.
COLORADO JUDICIARY,
COLORADO SUPREME COURT,
CHIEF JUSTICE NANCY RICE,
JUSTICE COATS, JUSTICE EID,
JUSTICE MARQUEZ, JUSTICE HOOD,
JUSTICE BOATRIGHT, JUSTICE
GABRIEL, et.al.,
Respondents.
Peter Coulter, pro se
151 Summer Street,#654
Morrison, Colorado, 80465
Phone 720 549-5349
TransparentCourts@gmail.com
__________________________________________________________

Page 1 of 16

FORTHWITH MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONDENTS, SANCTIONS AND STAY OF PROCEEDINGS.

FORTHWITH MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONDENTS, SANCTIONS AND STAY OF PROCEEDINGS.

COMES NOW, the Complainant Peter Coulter with his Amended Forthwith
Motion, to ask the Court to Compel Respondents to Forthwith produce the
names of "unknown radio stations" , appropriate sanctions for failure to do
so as of the date of this Motion, and a stay of proceedings until such time
as

Respondents

Stations.

provide

the

names

of

the

Respondents

Unknown

Radio

As good and sufficient cause the Complainant would state as

follows:
CERTIFICATE OF CONFERRAL
This Motion concerns Complainant, Peter Coulter's continued efforts to
get the name of unknown Respondents [Radio Stations]. Complainant Peter
Coulter has spoken to Respondents on numerous occasions starting October 4th
with Respondent Kent Wagner, an attorney and Appointed Director of the State
Judicial Performance Commission who initially was going to get me the names
of the "unknown radio stations", but then refused and kept going on a tangent
to continue his mantra that these were public service announcements; but
refusing to give me the names. [Exhibit 1]

He never indicated that he

couldnt get the stations that had aired the ads; he instead uses legal
speak to make an excuse in deference to 2015 Supreme Court Amended rules.
His final assertion was that he would not have them until November 30th.
After the Complaint was filed with the Secretary of State and before the
AG's office was involved, again I asked both Mr. Wagner and Mr. Sossa,1 both
of whom signed the contracts for the radio ads; Mr. Wagner would not provide
them and Mr. Sossa would open the emails but not respond. When the AG got
involved, again, I asked for the radio station names with no response. When
Ms. Tierney made her appearance for the Colorado Broadcasters Association

Mr. Sossa is head of Respondent, Colorado Broadcasters Association, who signed the contract with Respondent
Judiciary to air campaign ads [See Exhibit 4 of First Amended Complaint]

Page 2 of 16

FORTHWITH MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONDENTS, SANCTIONS AND STAY OF PROCEEDINGS.

and 104.3FM The Fan radio station; again I asked her with a copy to the AG
attorneys with no response.[Exhibit 4] And finally on November 9th, 2016,I
again asked for the names or I would have no choice but to involve the Court
and make a Motion to Compel. Ms. Tierney indicated she would oppose the
Motion; Mr. Grove indicated that the Judiciary would oppose the Motion and
Mr. Jackson indicated that he thought it was discovery which had been stayed
by the Court, [Exhibit 2] Mr. Broadwell, who represents the Denver County
Judges, did not respond.
1. Complainant reference his First Amended Complaint as though fully rewritten
herein including that he is a pro-se litigant.
I.FACTUAL BACKGROUND
2. On October 3rd, 2016 Complainant listened to an ad on Respondent 104.3THE
FAN radio station concerning the recommended retention and non-retention of
109 Colorado Judges.
3. The ad ended by saying, Sponsored by Colorado Judicial Branch, Colorado
Broadcasters Association and this radio station.
4. The

same

day,

[Oct.

3,

2016]

Complainant

attended

State

Judicial

Performance Commission monthly meeting at the Ralph Carr Justice Center.

5. At the beginning of said meeting Mr. Wagner, an attorney and appointed
Director of the State Judicial Performance Commission, indicated that the
campaign had begun on October 1st and that Respondent Colorado Broadcasters
Association was going to play the campaign ads on its affiliate stations
which included Respondent 104.3FM, The Fan.
6. When Complainant directly questioned Mr. Wagner on the validity of the ads
without

registering

with

the

Secretary

of

State

pursuant

to

Colorado

Constitution Article XXVIII and the Fair Campaign Practice Act, he indicated
that Judicial Performance Statute [CRS 13-5.5 et. seq.] mandated they
Page 3 of 16

FORTHWITH MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONDENTS, SANCTIONS AND STAY OF PROCEEDINGS.

educate the public and therefore, they did not need to comply with the
provisions of Const. Art. XXVIII and/or the Fair Campaign Practice Act.
7. Since the ads indicate that the Colorado Judicial Branch was sponsoring
the ads, the they he was speaking of was the Colorado Judicial Branch with
its 3600 employees and 304 Judges and not just the Judicial Performance
Commission. And additionally, it can therefore be concluded Mr. Wagner had
the Respondent Judiciarys permission to speak on their behalf.
8. This alleged permission is supported by the Respondents continued airing
of the ads after the Complaint was filed without objection by any of the
Respondents, including the Colorado Supreme Court.2
9. Immediately after Mr. Wagners announcements on Oct. 3rd, Complainant began
asking him for the names of the radio stations that were airing the ads in
gathering information to file the Complaint with the Secretary of State.
[EXHIBIT 1]
10.

At first, he indicated that he was out of town and would get them to me

when he returned. He also took the opportunity in continually responding to

my requests to tell me that the ads were public service announcements and
continued this mantra every time I asked him for names of the radio stations.
11.

I even asked if I needed to file a Public Access Request [Judiciary

form of CORA] for the radio station information and he indicated no but
again not before telling me the ads were public service announcements.
12.

It was very apparent that he knew, or could get the information of the

airing radio stations, but was trying to derail the filing of the Complaint;
at least until after the November 8th election so that the Judiciary could
continue to run the ads without the unknown radio stations being made aware
of the suit and therefore not having the ability to opt out by cancelling
the contract pursuant to the provisions of the Statute.[Exhibit 5]

Complainant heard the same exact ad referenced in the First Amended Complaint being aired on November 7 th
on Respondent 104.3The Fan, one day before the election and nearly a month after the Complaint was filed with
the Colorado Secretary of State.

Page 4 of 16

FORTHWITH MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONDENTS, SANCTIONS AND STAY OF PROCEEDINGS.

13.

This song and dance has continued for the last month as noted above

in direct violation of Respondent, Colorado Supreme Court 2015 amended rules

requiring disclosure [Exhibit 3] in order to limit Discovery.
14.

This case cannot proceed without having all the Respondents given the

chance to respond to the allegations of the Claimant. CRCP Rule 3.

15.

It is untenable that Respondent Colorado Supreme Court cannot follow

its own rules when the action concerns them. This is an orchestrated scheme
to keep the Complainant from notifying and including Respondents that only
Respondents Judiciary and Colorado Broadcasters Association have access to
the party names.
16.

I informed Ms. Tierney that I would not object to any of her clients

asking to excuse themselves as media entities pursuant to Campaign Finance

mandates but she immediately refused. But now she objects to the Motion to
provide their names. That is an oxymoron. She has an opportunity to remove
her clients from the suit without any harm, but for some reason, wants to
stay in the fight and refuses to give the names of the unknown radio stations
which Respondent Colorado Supreme Court indicates both the Judiciary and
Colorado Broadcasters Association must disclose.
CONCLUSION
17.

Complainant has continued to request the names of unknown radio stations

since October 4th, 2016 and continued to do so when various Respondents

retained attorneys.
18.

The Rules made by Respondent Colorado Supreme Court are clear that the

Respondents have the duty to disclose this essential information to the

Complainant that only they have access to.
19.
as

This case cannot proceed, even thru Motions to Dismiss, until such time
the

unknown

radio

stations

have

been

notified

and

been

given

an

opportunity to respond.
20.

Now that the election is over and the ads have allegedly ended under

the contract provisions, there is no necessity for an expedited hearing

until such time as all parties are notified and included.
Page 5 of 16

FORTHWITH MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONDENTS, SANCTIONS AND STAY OF PROCEEDINGS.

21.

No parties will be prejudiced by the granting of this motion.

WHEREFORE, the Complainant, Peter Coulter, pro-se would respectfully pray

this Court:
ORDER Respondent Judiciary and/or Colorado National Broadcasters to disclose
the names of unknown radio stations to the Complainant Forthwith,
ORDER the stay of all proceedings until such time as the Respondents have
produced the names of unknown radio stations,
ORDER appropriate sanctions against the Respondents including written emails
to each of their clients explaining their shameless actions in not following
the Rules written by their associate, the Colorado Supreme Court,
COSTS in an amount of $26.00 to bring this Motion,
AND for such further relief as the Court deems appropriate under the
circumstances,
FURTHER, that any ORDER by the COURT concerning this Motion be made permanent
for purposes of Appeal.3
Respectfully submitted this 10th Day of November, 2016,
/s/Peter Coulter

Since all Appellate Judges and Colorado Supreme Court Judges are all Respondents, this case will necessarily need
to be taken to the US Supreme Court for final appeal.

Page 6 of 16

FORTHWITH MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONDENTS, SANCTIONS AND STAY OF PROCEEDINGS.

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I certify that on 11/11/2016 a true and correct copy of the above Motion was served on each of
the following:
Name of Person to Party
Whom
you
are
Sending
this
Document
Judiciary.
Respondents
AG attorneys

Address

Mr. Justin Sasso

Respondents
Colorado Broadcasters
Association
104.3THE FAN
Respondents

mtierney@tierneylawrence.com

E-MAIL

mtierney@tierneylawrence.com

E-mail

Denver Judiciary

Respondents

David.Broadwell@denvergov.org

E-mail

Colo. Supreme Court

Respondents

christopher.ryan@judicial.state.co.us.readnotify.com

Email

matt.grove@coag.gov
Christopher.Jackson@coag.gov

*Insert one of the following: Hand Delivery, First-Class Mail, Certified Mail, E-Served or
Faxed.

Page 7 of 16

FORTHWITH MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONDENTS, SANCTIONS AND STAY OF PROCEEDINGS.

Manner
of
Service
*
E-MAIL

/s/ Peter Coulter

PETER
COULTER

Oct 17

<transparentcourts@gmail.com>

to bcc: kent

EXHIBIT 1
Emails to Kent
Wagner

Dear Mr. Wagner:

I must assume we had a misunderstanding when I requested the names of all radio stations that are running
the ads that you sent me. The only one I am sure of is 104.3 FM. The Fan. Could you please send me the
names of the others this morning? Again, if you need me to make a public access request, please respond
immediately with that decision.
Thank you for your time and consideration in these matters.
Sincerely,
/s/Peter Coulter

wagner, kent

Oct 17

to me
Mr. Coulter, I do not know which radio stations are playing our public education messages. My
contract is with the Colorados Broadcasters Association (CBA) to participate in their non-commercial
supporting message program. By contract the public education messages were created in
collaborations with the CBA. The CBA is responsibility for distributing those public education messages
to their member stations. The stations determine if and when they air the public education messages.
Kent J. Wagner, JD
Executive Director

Ralph L. Carr Judicial Center

1300 Broadway, Suite 220
Denver, CO 80203
303-928-7779(direct) / kent.wagner@judicial.state.co.us
Celebrating 50 years of CO Judicial Merit Selection in 2016

www.ojpe.org

From: PETER COULTER [mailto:transparentcourts@gmail.com]

Sent: Monday, October 17, 2016 5:20 AM
Subject: Radio stations

Page 8 of 16

FORTHWITH MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONDENTS, SANCTIONS AND STAY OF PROCEEDINGS.

PETER
COULTER

Oct 17

<transparentcourts@gmail.com>

to bcc: kent
Dear Mr. Wagner,
I want to make sure I understand what you are saying in your previous email. You don't have a clue of
what stations are running the 6 radio ads you forwarded to me earlier this month, nor do you have any records
showing which stations have run the ads, nor can you contact anyone, i.e. Mr. Sasso who you signed the
contracts to find out which stations have run the ads.
Is that a fair assessment of what you are saying? Again, if this requires a Public Access Request of you
or the Judiciary, please let me know immediately and I will prepare it.
I would appreciate your immediate response please.
Again, thank you for your time and consideration in these important matters.
Sincerely,
/s/Peter Coulter

wagner, kent

Oct 17

to me
Mr. Coulter, my previous response is accurate and responsive to your request. I will have a compliance
report from the CBA on or about November 30, 2016 as per the contract. That report will provide
names of participating stations and markets who broadcasted our public education messaging.
Kent J. Wagner, JD
Executive Director

Ralph L. Carr Judicial Center

1300 Broadway, Suite 220
Denver, CO 80203
303-928-7779(direct) / kent.wagner@judicial.state.co.us
Celebrating 50 years of CO Judicial Merit Selection in 2016

www.ojpe.org

From: PETER COULTER [mailto:transparentcourts@gmail.com]

Sent: Monday, October 17, 2016 10:41 AM
Subject: Re: Radio stations

Page 9 of 16

FORTHWITH MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONDENTS, SANCTIONS AND STAY OF PROCEEDINGS.

PETER
COULTER

Nov 9 (1 day ago)

<transparentcourts@gmail.com>

to bcc: Matt, bcc: Christopher, bcc: David, bcc: Martha, bcc: Matt
Good morning,

EXHIBIT 2
EMAILS AGAIN REQUESTING
RADIO STATION NAMES

Tomorrow morning, I will file a Motion to Compel for the production of the unknown radio stations that
have aired the "ad". and a Motion for leave to put them thereafter into the Complaint. The Complaint itself will
not change as the claims for relief will be the same as Respondent 104.3.
I would appreciate that now the election is over and Mr. Wagner has previously indicated that the
contract for the airing of the ads ended November 8th that you would just turn them over to me without having
to get the Court involved.
Otherwise, please state your position by 5pm this evening.
Regards,
/s/ Peter Coulter
--

Dedicated to Transparency and Accountability in the Courts

REGISTRY OF ACTIONS; COULTER VS. JUDICIARY, et. al.
"Transparent Courts" is a Political Candidate Committee registered with the Colorado Secretary of State
pursuant to Colorado Constitution, Article XXIII; promoting the non-retention of every Judge in Colorado until
the Judiciary becomes 100% Transparent & Accountable. Our mission statement as inscribed in gold on the
Colorado Supreme Court marquee:

JUSTICE FOR ALL

To unsubscribe from these emails in the future, please reply with "Unsubscribe" and we will immediately
remove you from the list.
To subscribe to this email list, Send an email to:
TransparentCourts@gmail.com and include your name and email address. All addresses will be blind copied.
You may also see the Complaint and Registry of Actions via the Colorado Secretary of State, Campaign
Finance Division. Currently it does not allow the internal links and bookmarks of the Complaint to work as the
Scribd link above provides.
http://tracer.sos.colorado.gov/PublicSite/SearchPages/ComplaintDetail.aspx?ID=411
Also, you can follow the case via Facebook at the following link:
https://www.facebook.com/TransparentCourts-1567081133592256/
If you have any questions or comments please don't hesitate to contact me at TransparentCourts@gmail.com.
62% of Americans now view government corruption as their biggest threat
Join us in again making the Colorado Judiciary Transparent, Accountable and Trustworthy to the citizens of
Colorado that it serves.

Page 10 of 16

FORTHWITH MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONDENTS, SANCTIONS AND STAY OF PROCEEDINGS.

/s/Peter Coulter

Christopher Jackson

Nov 9 (1 day ago)

to Matt, mtierney, David, me

Mr. Coulter,
The Judicial Defendants oppose. The Courts October 31 order says, All discovery is stayed pending the
outcome of the motions. Because the Court hasnt yet ruled on the motions to dismiss, no party may
take any discovery.
Best,
Chris
Christopher Jackson
Assistant Attorney General
Public Officials Unit
Colorado Department of Law
1300 Broadway, 6th Floor
Denver, CO 80203
Tel: (720) 508-6178
From: PETER COULTER [mailto:transparentcourts@gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, November 09, 2016 5:51 AM
Subject: Motion to Compell

PETER
COULTER

3:20 PM (19 hours ago)

<transparentcourts@gmail.com>

to Christopher, bcc: David, bcc: Matt, bcc: Martha, bcc: Matt

Mr. Jackson,
Discovery is "any material which is reasonably calculated to lead to admisable evidence". BLD
This is not discovery. I am not looking for any "admissible evidence."
I am asking you for the names of "Respondents" to serve them. I have asked Mr. Wagner at least 4 times
previous to filing the lawsuit and each time he refused to provide them to me saying he didn't know who they
were. Really? I also E-mailed Mr. Sossa [ before Ms. Tierney made an entry of appearance at least twice
asking for the names and both times it was indicated that he opened the Emails, but he never responded. I
have also asked Ms. Tierney one time and she did not respond.
Again, I ask you to provide me the unknown "Respondents" so I may put them in the suit.
Sincerely,
/s/Peter Coulter

Page 11 of 16

FORTHWITH MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONDENTS, SANCTIONS AND STAY OF PROCEEDINGS.

Matt
Grove

3:30 PM (19 hours ago)

Thank you for your email. The Judicial Defendants oppose.

From: PETER COULTER...

Martha
Tierney

3:46 PM (19 hours ago)

via tierneylawrence.onmicrosoft.com

to me, Christopher
Mr. Coulter,
My clients (the CBA, Justin Sasso, and 104.3 fm ) oppose your motion.
Sent from my iPhone

Page 12 of 16

FORTHWITH MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONDENTS, SANCTIONS AND STAY OF PROCEEDINGS.

RULE CHANGE 2015(05)

COLORADO RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE

EXHIBIT 3 RELEVANT EXCERPTS

FROM RESPONDENT COLORADO
SUPREME COURT CONCERNING
DISCLOSURE AND DISCOVERY

Rule 1. Scope of Rules (a) Procedure Governed. These rules govern the procedure in the supreme court,
court of appeals, district courts, and superior courts and in the juvenile and probate courts of the City
and County of Denver, in all actions, suits and proceedings of a civil nature, whether cognizable as cases
at law or in equity, and in all special statutory proceedings, with the exceptions stated in Rule 81. Thesey
rules shall be liberally construed, administered, and employed by the court and the parties to secure the
just, speedy, and inexpensive determination of every action. Rules of civil procedure governing county
courts shall be in accordance with Chapter 25 of this volume. Rules of Procedure governing probate
courts and probate proceedings in the district courts shall be in accordance with these rules and Chapter
27 of this volume. (In case of conflict between rules, those set forth in Chapter 27 shall control.) Rules of
Procedure governing juvenile courts and juvenile proceedings in the district courts shall be in
accordance with these rules and Chapter 28 made effective on the same date as these rules. In case of
conflict between rules those set forth in Chapter 28 shall control. Rules of Procedure in Municipal Courts
are in Chapter 30. (b)(c) [NO CHANGE]
Amendments effective July 1, 2015 for cases filed on or after July 1, 2015 .

COMMENTS 2015 [1] The 2015 amendments are the next step in a wave of reform literally sweeping the
nation. This reform movement aims to create a significant change in the existing culture of pretrial
discovery with the goal of emphasizing and enforcing Rule 1s mandate that discovery be administered
to make litigation just, speedy, and inexpensive. One of the primary movers of this reform effort is a
realization that the cost and delays of the existing litigation process is denying meaningful access to the
judicial system for many people. [2] The changes here are based on identical wording changes proposed
for the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. They are designed to place still greater emphasis on the
concept that litigation is to be treated at all times, by all parties and the courts, to make it just,
speedy, and inexpensive, and, thereby, noticeably to increase citizens access to justice.
Rule 26
Rule 26. General Provisions Governing Discovery; Duty of Disclosure (a) Required Disclosures; Methods
to Discover Additional Matter. Unless otherwise ordered by the court or stipulated by the parties,
provisions of this Rule shall not apply to domestic relations, juvenile, mental health, probate, water law,
forcible entry and detainer, C.R.C.P. 120, or other expedited proceedings. (1) Disclosures. Except to the
extent otherwise directed by the court, a party shall, without awaiting a discovery request, provide to
other parties the following information, whether or not supportive of the disclosing partys claims or
defenses: (A) tThe name and, if known, the address and telephone number of each individual likely to
have discoverable information relevant to the claims and defenses of any party disputed facts alleged
with particularity in the pleadings, identifying who the person is and the subjects and a brief description
of the specific information that each such individual is known or believed to possess;
Page 13 of 16

FORTHWITH MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONDENTS, SANCTIONS AND STAY OF PROCEEDINGS.

(1) In General. Subject to the limitations and considerations contained in subsection (b)(2) of this
Rule, parties may obtain discovery regarding any matter, not privileged, that is relevant to the
claim or defense of any party, and proportional to the needs of the case, considering the
importance of the issues at stake in the action, the amount in controversy, the parties relative
access to relevant information, the parties resources, the importance of the discovery in
resolving the issues, and whether the burden or expense of the proposed discovery outweighs
its likely benefit.
(F) In determining good cause to modify the limitations of this subsection (b)(2), the court shall
consider the following:
(Ii) Whether the discovery sought is unreasonably cumulative or duplicative, or is obtainable
from some other source that is more convenient, less burdensome, or less expensive;
(IIii) wWhether the party seeking discovery has had ample opportunity by disclosure or
discovery in the action to obtain the information sought;

[17] Initial disclosures. Amendments to Rule 26(a)(1) concerning initial disclosures are not as significant
as those to Rule 26(b)(1). Nonetheless, it is intended that disclosures should be quite complete and that,
therefore, further discovery should not be as necessary as it has been historically. In this regard, the
amendment to section (a)(1) adds to the requirement of disclosing four categories of information and
that the disclosure include information whether or not supportive of the disclosing partys case. This
should not be a significant change from prior practice. In 2000, Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(1) was changed to
narrow the initial disclosure requirements to information a party might use to support its position. The
Colorado Supreme Court has not adopted that limitation, and continues to require identification of
persons and documents that are relevant to disputed facts alleged with particularity in the pleadings.
Thus, it was intended that disclosures were to include matter that might be harmful as well as
supportive. (Limiting disclosure to supportive information likely would only encourage initial
interrogatories and document requests that would require disclosure of harmful information.)

Page 14 of 16

FORTHWITH MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONDENTS, SANCTIONS AND STAY OF PROCEEDINGS.

EXHIBIT 4 Correspondence
between Mr. Coulter and Ms.
Tierney, Attorney for CBA and
104.3THE FAN
PETER

Oct 31 (10 days ago)

COULTER

<transparentcourts@gmail.com>

to Martha
Ms Tierney,
As I indicated earlier, if your clients cancelled the contracts pursuant to the FCPA Statute, and opted out of the
suit, I would not object provided you gave me a list of the stations that have aired the ads, for purposes only of
showing the Court how many ads the Judiciary has run.
Let me know.
/s/Peter Coulter
Caveat: They don't have your entry of appearance as of 11am. /s/peter

--

Dedicated to Transparency and Accountability in the Courts

Martha
Tierney

Oct 31 (10 days ago)

via tierneylawrence.onmicrosoft.com

to me
Mr. Coulter.
My clients decline your offer.
Thx
Martha
From: PETER COULTER [mailto:transparentcourts@gmail.com]
Sent: Monday, October 31, 2016 12:10 PM
To: Martha Tierney <mtierney@tierneylawrence.com>
Subject: Coulter v. Judiciary et. al.

Page 15 of 16

FORTHWITH MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONDENTS, SANCTIONS AND STAY OF PROCEEDINGS.

EXHIBIT 5
FAIR CAMPAIGN PRACTICE ACT

FAIR CAMPAIGN
PRACTICE ACT. Sec 112.5

CRS 1-45-112.5. Immunity from liability. (1) Any individual volunteering his or her time on behalf of a
candidate or candidate committee shall be immune from any liability for a fine or penalty imposed
pursuant to section 10 (1) of article XXVIII of the state constitution in any proceeding that is based on an
act or omission of such volunteer if:
(a) The volunteer was acting in good faith and within the scope of such volunteer's official functions and
duties for the candidate or candidate committee; and (b) The violation was not caused by willful and
intentional misconduct by such volunteer. (2) Subsection (1) of this section shall be administered in a
manner that is consistent with section 1 of article XXVIII of the state constitution and with the legislative
declaration set forth in section 1-45-102.
(3) Any media outlet shall be immune from civil liability in any court where the media outlet: (a)
Withdraws advertising time reserved by an independent expenditure committee that fails to register
in accordance with the requirements of section 1-45-107.5 (3) (a); or (b) Elects to void an advertising
contract and the advertisement: (I) Is paid for by an independent expenditure committee that fails to
register under section 1-45-107.5 (3) (a); (II) Is paid for by an independent expenditure committee that
is registered under section 1-45-107.5 (3) (a) but the committee fails to file a disclosure report under
section 1-45-108 (2) through the date of the most recent required report; or (III) Fails to satisfy the
requirements of section 1-45-107.5 (5) (a). (4) An affected media outlet may void a contract that
implicates paragraph (b) of subsection (3) of this section in the sole discretion of the media outlet.

Page 16 of 16

FORTHWITH MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONDENTS, SANCTIONS AND STAY OF PROCEEDINGS.