allow an additional period of

, say oC

discovery cf Ms. Malenick’s finances,

to Go so, and then to submit, within, say 120 days

(90 pius 30) any further motion it wishes to file concerning the

financial penaicies, if y, that snould be imposed on

Ms. Maienick. 1f such discovery is not taken, or such a motion
is not tiled, or both, I will rely upon the sworn statements
Ms. Malenick has made about her finances, made under penalty of
perjury, and wiil issue a final judgment and erder for

declaratory and injunctive relief, in substantially the form

suggested by the FEC in its submission of April 30, 2004 [45].

JAMES ROBERTSON
United States District Judge


ons did, as the FEC suggests, proceed from the

from corpera

propositicn that a showing of subjective intent would be

necessary to brand funds “contribu ns,” and, as the FEC has

peinted cut, the Supreme Court’s decision ir ifornia Medical

AS

n.v. FEC, 453 U.S. 282 (1981), rerdezs that propositior
erroneous.

Simultaneously with its motion for reconsideration, the

FEC submitted e “preposal for final reselution” of this matter
one that would limit the Court’s final judgment and order to
these claims for which summary judgment for the Commission has
already been granted, plus the claims that would be established
as @ matter of Law with the instant grant of the Commission’s
motion for reconsideration, plus Triad’s excessive contribution

made in conjuncticn with its affiliated political committee. The

FEC’s proposal, however, “assumes that Malenick be able to

substantiate her significant debt and minimal assets” (p. 9).

Tne nard question is how Ms. Malenick is te “substantiate” her
finances. The FEC suggests that I issue an order requiring her

to submit documentation to the Court, but that proposal raises
substantial privacy issues and involves the Court in a question
that the Court need not be concerned with, if the EEC can be
Satisfied about Ms. Malenick’s situation. Instead of requiring
Ms. Maitenick to comply with an open-ended order that she

“file . . . documentation substantiating her assets and


—

DCD_ECFNotice@dcd.uscou To DCD_ECFNotice@ded.uscourts.gov
rts.gov

03/07/2005 04:35 PM ve

bee

Activity in Case 1:02-cv-01237-JR FEDERAL ELECTION
Subject COMMISSION v. MALENICK et al “Order on Motion for
Reconsideration"

***NOTE TO PUBLIC ACCESS USERS*** You may view the filed documents once
without charge. To avoid later charges, download a copy of each document during this first
viewing.

U.S. District Court us
District of Columbia
Notice of Electronic Filing

The following transaction was received from MT, entered on 3/7/2005 at 4:35 PM EDT.apd filed
on 3/7/2005 _

Case Name: FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION v. MALENICK et al

Case Number: 1:02-¢v-1237 7

Filer:

Document Number: — 54

Docket Text:

ORDER granting FEC'’s motion for reconsideration [46]. and denying Malenick's motion to
amend the answer [49] and denying Malenick's motion for declaratory judgment [49]. Signed by
Judge James Robertson on March 7, 2005. (MT)

The following document(s) are associated with this transaction:

Document description:Main Document

Originat filename:O:\CASES\02-1237:Reconsid.ord.pdf

Electronic document Stamp:

[STAMP deeefStamp_ID=973800458 [Date=3/7/2005] {FileNumber=693 1 66-0] [
65a8d30d249012e795c4179f3c940cfa080d | 4aad768e5ed64ed484 fc730f61b93b982
dce69aab62e54e1 962a0aa3aGdce00a7a2b3385c03 1 90b8320c5671811c7}]

1:02-cv-1237 Notice will be electronically mailed to:
Stephen E. Hershkowitz — shershkowitz@fec.gov,

Erin Kathleen Monaghan — emonaghan@fec.gov,


dkolker@fee.gov:sgarr@fec.gov:vgraham@ fee. gov;jchang@itec.gov

Gregory John Mueller — gmueller@fec.gov,
dkolker@fec.gov;jchang@fec.gov;sgarr@fec.gov;vgraham@fec.gov

1:02-cv-1237 Notice will be delivered by other means to:

CAROLYN MALENICK
8913 Early Street
Manassas, VA 22110

Mark D. Shonkwiler

Federal Election Commission
999 E Street, NW
Washington, DC 20463


UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION,
Piaintiff,
ve : Civil Action No. 02-1237
CAROLYN MALENICK, et al., :

Defendants.

ORDER

Pending before tne Court are the motion of the Federal

a)

n Commission fcr reconsideration cf a portion of thi

Court’s order of March 30, 2004, granting in part and denying in
part plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment, and the motion of
defendant Carolyn Malenick to amend her arswer and (by way cf
cress-moticn) for declaratory judgment.

Defendant has not shown good cayse for filing an
amendment that would change the landscape of this litigation at a
time when almest all of the issues in the case have been
resolved. The counterciaim she wishes to assert would ciearly be
barred by the doctrine of sovereign immunity, and would
accordingly be futile. Malenick’s motions [49] are accordingly
denied.

The FEC’s motion for reconsideration [46! is granted.

ny

»

My finding that the present record was insufficient to support

finding that Triad, Inc. had accepted prohibited contributicns