-1-

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Civil Action No. 11-cv-02292-CMA-KLM

USA,

Plaintiff,

v.

JAMES D. WELCH, individually and as Executive Trustee of Celestial Pursuits Trust,

AMRA WELCH, as nominee/alter ego of James D. Welch, and

CIT GROUP/EQUIPMENT FINANCING, INC.,

Defendants.

_____________________________________________________________________

MINUTE ORDER

_____________________________________________________________________

ENTERED BY MAGISTRATE JUDGE KRISTEN L. MIX

This matter is before the Court on Defendant Jim Welch’s (“Welch”) Motion

Requesting Clarification and Motion to Compel [Docket No. 33; Filed March 5, 2012]

(respectively, the “Motion to Clarify” and the “Motion to Compel”). On April 25, 2012,

Plaintiff filed a Response in opposition to the Motion. In short, Defendant Welch seeks a

Court order compelling production from the Clerk of Court of appointment affidavits and

oaths of office of Court personnel connected to this case, including members of the Office

of the Clerk and the judicial officers assigned to this matter. Defendant Welch also seeks

the answers to ten legal questions in connection with his discovery request, such as “Does

5 U.S.C. 3331 require all clerks and deputy clerks to execute valid SF-61 APPOINTMENT

AFFIDAVITS?” Motion [#33] at 6.

With respect to the Motion to Compel, in late February 2012 Defendant Welch

attempted to serve a subpoena for production of documents on Gregory C. Langham, the

Clerk of Court for the United States District Court for the District of Colorado. See Attach.

1 to Motion [#33] at 15-16. In a letter dated February 27, 2012, the Legal Officer to the

Clerk of Court (the “Legal Officer”) responded to Defendant Welch’s subpoena. See

Attach. 1 to Motion [#33] at 12-14. In the letter, the Legal Officer explained the proper

procedure for obtaining production of documents from judiciary officers, staff, and court

records. See id. “[P]roperly promulgated agency regulations implementing federal statutes

have the force and effect of federal law . . . .” Boron Oil Co. v. Downie, 873 F.2d 67, 71

(citing Chrysler Corp. v. Brown, 441 U.S. 281, 295-96 (1979)). Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§

604(a)(1), (f), the Director of the Administrative Office of the United States Courts (the

Case 1:11-cv-02292-CMA-KLM Document 38 Filed 05/03/12 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 3
1

 The Testimony is available on the Court’s website at: 

http://www.cod.uscourts.gov/Documents/Civil/MiscForms/rule_disclosure.pdf.

2

 A “request” includes a subpoena “for the production, disclosure, or release of information

or records by the federal judiciary . . . .” Testimony § 3(a). Defendant submitted a subpoena to the

Clerk of Court in connection with this matter.

-2-

“Director”) has the authority to “[s]upervise all administrative matters relating to the offices

of clerks and other clerical and administrative personnel of the Courts” and to “make,

promulgate, issue, rescind, and amend rules and regulations . . . as may be necessary to

carry out the Director’s functions, powers, duties, and authority.” The Testimony of

Judiciary Personnel and Production of Judiciary Records in Legal Proceedings (2003)

(“Testimony”)1

 are the relevant regulations promulgated by the Director. See Testimony

§ 2. “Federal judicial personnel may not . . . produce records in legal proceedings except

as authorized in accordance with these regulations.” Id. § 5(a). Pursuant to the

regulations,

The request[2] for testimony or production of records shall set forth, or shall

be accompanied by an affidavit setting forth, a written statement by the party

seeking the testimony or production of records, or by counsel for the party,

containing an explanation of the nature of the testimony or records sought,

the relevance of the testimony or records sought to the legal proceedings,

and the reasons why the testimony or records sought, or the information

contained therein, are not readily available from other sources or by other

means. This explanation shall contain sufficient information for the

determining officer designated in section 7(b) to determine whether or not

federal judicial personnel should be allowed to testify or the records should

be produced. Where the request does not contain an explanation sufficient

for this purpose, the determining officer may deny the request or may ask the

requester to provide additional information.

Testimony § 6(a). Defendant Welch has not alleged that he has followed the appropriate

procedure, as explained here and in the Legal Officer’s letter to him, to obtain the

information he requests. Instead, he is attempting to bypass the appropriate procedure by

asking the Court to enforce his request as originally made. Defendant Welch must comply

with the regulations authorizing release of documents from the federal judiciary.

Accordingly,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Motion to Compel is DENIED.

Defendant Welch further seeks answers to a number of legal questions, such as,

“Does 5 U.S.C. 2906 designate the Office of Clerk of Court as the legal custodian of all SF61 APPOINTMENT AFFIDAVITS executed by all personnel employed by this Court?”

Motion [#33] at 6. It is inappropriate for the Court to address such questions because it is

Case 1:11-cv-02292-CMA-KLM Document 38 Filed 05/03/12 USDC Colorado Page 2 of 3
-3-

apparent that Defendant Welch is seeking legal advice from the Court. The Court is

precluded from offering legal advice to litigants, whether pro se or otherwise. See Peper

v. Dep’t of Agric., No. 04-cv-01382-ZLW-KLM, 2008 WL 2690707, at *2 (D. Colo. July 3,

2008). Accordingly,

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Motion to Clarify is DENIED.

Dated: May 3, 2012

Case 1:11-cv-02292-CMA-KLM Document 38 Filed 05/03/12 USDC Colorado Page 3 of 3