By Andrew S. Evans, LAW WEEK COLORADO
DENVER — Anti-tax activist and former state legislator Douglas Bruce appeared in court today along his attorney David Lane of Killmer Lane & Newman LLP to answer a contempt of court charge. The heated proceedings saw the attorney general office’s John Lizza claiming that Bruce’s lawyers were attempting to stall the proceedings while Lane, seemingly supported by Judge Brian Whitney, claimed that the anti-tax proponent had done all that was asked of him.
Whitney, however, declined to dismiss the case. He immediately proceeded to a hearing where the government will attempt to prove that Bruce knowingly refused to appear at a deposition and produce documents.
The hearing, scheduled to last three days, would conclude after the Labor Day holiday.
Bruce was served a contempt of court citation on June 23 after lawyers failed to serve a subpoena 29 times and could face jail time. He failed to produce documents regarding Amendments 60, 61, and 101 that would slash $1.2 billion from the budget in their current form and attend a hearing to testify about the identity of the mysterious “Mr. X” that would eventually connect him to the man behind the letter.
“In my opinion, I was never served,” Bruce said during a break in the hearing. “Twenty-nine times zero is still zero.”
The state pushed for a quick resolution to the issue. A hearing was originally scheduled for July 26 but was pushed back twice at the request of Bruce’s lawyers.
“Remedial sanctions are running out of time to be meaningful,” Lizza stated. “Voters won’t be able to make an informed decision if this information comes to light after the election.”
Bruce’s attorneys declared that the state’s case was moot seeing as Bruce was never sent an actual subpoena rescheduling his court date to May 10, but a letter from Isaacson Rosenbaum’s Mark Grueskin, who is the attorney for the opponents of the initiatives. Lane asked that the case be dismissed over this technicality.
“Mark Grueskin can schedule anything he wants including his own birthday party. He didn’t serve my client with a summons,” Lane stated. “The court can short-circuit these proceedings by asking the state to show the return of service.”
The actual motion for finding of proper service claimed that Bruce was personally served with a subpoena and that he “ignored his obligation to produce documents.”
The state submitted a lengthy witness list that includes Bruce, who may not testify, and Grueskin.
Stay ahead by signing up for Law Week E-News! >