On January 15, a judge heard motions from the AG’s Office and BIAW pertaining to the AG’s contention BIAW purposefully violated campaign finance rules in 2008 and thus should open all its books and records to AG scrutiny (the AG is demanding access to BIAW records dating back to 2003, even though the supposed violation took place in 2008) and pay an unprecedented $900,000 fine. 

At the hearing, the Judge asked the AG and BIAW to work to agree to stipulated facts.  BIAW had previously offered, and continues to offer, to agree to the very facts upon which the AG has based its case and determined the $900,000 fine.  Yet in a move even the judge noted was “curious,” the AG refuses to agree to its own facts.   

Following is a timeline of BIAW’s efforts to comply with the judge’s wishes and cooperate with the AG to resolve the case as quickly as possible, and the AG’s continued stonewalling of BIAW’s efforts. 

January 15—Court hearing; Judge encourages both parties to cooperate in an attempt to reach a set of agreed upon stipulated facts as expeditiously as possible.  Judge says once the facts are agreed upon, he will rule quickly on this case.   

January 15—After the hearing, BIAW asks AG to review proposed stipulated facts previously submitted by BIAW.   AAG Linda Dalton promises she will “get back to [us] by Tuesday,” which would have been January 19. 

January 19—No word from AG. 

January 22—In an attempt to comply with the Judge’s order, BIAW sends letter to AG again asking to review our proposed stipulated facts and let us know which facts, if any, they contest. 

February 3—AG finally acknowledges receipt of Jan. 22 letter, but makes no mention of addressing proposed stipulated facts. 

February 4—BIAW sends another letter to AG, recounting Judge’s order for parties to cooperate towards reaching stipulated facts.  Again, AG acknowledges receipt of Feb. 4 letter, but makes no mention of addressing proposed stipulated facts. 

February 9—BIAW, via two separate emails, asks if AG has considered BIAW’s proposed stipulated facts and inquires when, if ever, the AG will respond.  No response to date. 

February 15—More than one month after the Judge’s order for parties to cooperate toward agreeing on stipulated facts, BIAW has yet to receive any response from AG in response to our repeated requests for review of our proposed stipulated facts. 

BIAW’s attorneys have repeatedly asked the AG to stipulate to the facts—their own facts upon which they base their allegations—in the case so the Judge can rule and the case can be resolved. Why won’t the AG agree to its own facts?  Why won’t the AG even respond to BIAW’s repeated requests to agree to the facts? One can only assume the AG’s Office is intentionally stonewalling BIAW in order to run up our legal costs.   

The AG has the infinite resources of the state at its disposal, while BIAW is forced to pay significant amounts of money to continue litigating this case.  Clearly BIAW would like to come to resolution as quickly as possible, and clearly the state has no such incentive.