BELIEVE THAT CPANJ IS A PUBLIC ENTITY. AND I WANT TO TALK ABOUT. JUSTICE PATTERSON:
: LEAVE US IN SUSPENSE. MR. GRIFFIN: YES. AND WITH THAT I'M GOING
TO TALK ABOUT THIS NOTION THAT YOU CAN FILE A REQUEST WITH ALL 21 PROSECUTORS. I'M GOING
TALK ABOUT THAT HAS AND JUST FIRST SAY IF CPANJ IS NOT A PUBLIC AGENCY THEN WE HAVE CONCERNS
ABOUT, THE USE OF OF ASSISTANT PROSECUTORS ANTE I COUNTED MORE THAN 3-DOZEN CASES ARGUING
AND ENTERING COURT APPEARANCES ON BEHALF OF THE CPA N.J. AND THAT'S IN DIRECT VIOLATION
OF NUCHSZ 2A:: 158-15.1 B WHICH PROBTSZ ASSISTANT PROSECUTORS AS JUSTICE WEINER APP TER
ALLUDED TO FROM OUTSIDE EMPLOYMENT UNLESS IT'S APROVED BUT OUTSIDE LEGAL SERVICES CAN
NEVER BE APPROVED SO THEY ARE PROHIBITED FROM REPRESENTING OTHER PRIVATE ORGANIZATIONS
OR ENTITIES IN COURT PROCEEDINGS AND THAT FREQUENTLY APPEAR BEFORE THIS COURT AND IN
THIS CASE IT WAS NOT JUST THE PROSECUTOR -- THE ASSISTANT PROSECUTOR THAT ENTERED AN
APPEARANCE BUT THE MERCER COUNTY HE PROSECUTOR'S OFFICE ITSELF WAS COUNSEL OF RECORD AND
THAT'S UNLIKE ANY OTHER PRIVATE, THE THE GOVERNMENT WOULD NEVER REPRESENT ANY OTHER
PRIVATE ORGANIZATION AND THE REASON WHY THIS PRACTICE HAS GONE ON 4 YEARS, I THINK THE
FIRST APPEARANCE THAT WE FOUND WAS 1986 IRONICALLY IN A PUBLIC RECORDS CASE, LLOYD.
MAN: VERSUS KIM MEDICAL. MAN: IS BECAUSE THE COUNT PROSECUTOR'S OFFICE AND
C PAFRJ ARE ESSENTIALLY 1 IN THE SAME. THERE'S NOT REALLY A DISTINCTION AND SO I SUPPOSE
I'M SKIPPING AHEAD A LITTLE BIT BUT I'M PLANTING THAT SEED, THAT SOMETIMES WE HAVE AND
CURRENTLY DON'T WORK WHICH IS WHY I MATCH YIN WE'RE BEFORE THIS COURT BUT I WANT TO GO
BACK TO THE NOTION THAT PUTTING SIDE THE STATUTE TRI VIOLATIONS BY THE THE USE OF THE
ASSISTANT PROSECUTORS, THE POSSIBLE ETHICAL VIOLATIONS AND MISS USE OF PUBLIC PROORTD
BY USING THESE EXTENSIVE RESOURCES. THE COURT:^ DO YOU REALLY WANT TO TALK
THIS ARGUMENT INTO AN ARGUMENT ABOUT THE ETHICS OR SHOULD WE FOCUS ON THE STATUTE TRI
LANGUAGE AND PUT THAT TO 1 SIDE GIF WE CAN PUT IT TO ASIDE, I THINK IT'S WORTH MENTIONING
AND I THINK IT'S WORTH REVEALING THAEM. IJUST UNIQUE, IT DOESN'T HAPPEN WITH ANY OTHER
OF THESE ORNG ASSOCIATIONS. THE GOVERNMENT DOESN'T REPRESENT. CHIEF JUSTICE
STUART RABNER: MAKE YOUR POINT. MR. GRIFFIN: OKAY. SO GOING TO 2 DIFFERENT
CONSEQUENCES OF FINDING THAT ACLU-NJ IS NOT A PRIVACY, THE THE NEXT THING IF IT'S A PRIVATE
CITY IT'S COMMUNICATIONS WITH THE GOVERNMENT, MOST LIKELY THE ATTORNEY GENERAL WOULD NOT
BE SUBJECT TO ANY PRIVILEDGE AND WHAT I MEAN BY THAT IS THE TLIB RAHTIVE PROCESS PRIVILEDGE
IS PROBABLY THE PRIVILEDGE THAT THE ATTORNEY GENERAL WOULD LIKELY USE THE MOST. IT WOULD
EXEMPT CONVERSATIONS, FRANK DISCUSSIONS OF POLICY MAKING, BACK AND FORTH, DRAFT DOCUMENTS
AND THOSE SORT OF THINGS. FOR THAT XEFRMGS TO APPLY, IT HAS TO BE INTRA OR INTERAGENCY
SO WHEN MY FRIENDS AT THE A C L U COMMUNICATE WITH SOMEONE FROM THE ATTORNEY GENERAL'S
OFFICE OR THE ATTORNEY GENERAL AS MANY OTHER NONPROFIT POLICY ORGANIZATIONS DO, THEY KNOW
THAT THEIR COMMUNICATIONS COULD BE SUBJECT TO OPRA. NO PRIVILEDGE APPLIES. SO IF ACLU-NJ
IS A PRIVACY AND NOT A PUBLIC AGENCY I DON'T SEE HOW ACLU-NJ COMMUNICATION WZ ACLU-NJ
COULD BE CONFIDENTIAL. IF IT IS A PUBLIC AGENCY THEN THE USE OF THE PROSECUTORS, THE USE
OF THE RESOURCES ANDET EXEMPTIONS APPLY. THE COMMUNICATIONS, THE DELIBERATIVE PROCESS
PRIVILEDGE, OTHER PRIVILEGES THAT APPLY TO ENTER GOVERNMENTAL CONVERSATIONS WOULD APPLY.
SO WE THINK THAT'S IMPORTANT. I DISCUSS IT MORE IN MY BRIEF PUERTO RICO
REGARDING THE PRACTICALITY OF THE 21 REQUESTS TO PROSECUTORS, IT SOUNDS SIMPLE AND I DO
ARGUE THAT IT IS AN ALTERNATIVE IN MY BRIEF AS WELL. I THINK IT'S .3. IT SOUNDS SIMPLY
BUT THAT THERE ARE SOME SIMPLE PRACTICAL PROBLEMS WITH IT. FIRST, IT'S VERY EASY TO GO
TO 1 ORGANIZATION AND GET THE DOCUMENTS THAT THEY HAVE. IT'S MUCH MORE DIFFICULT TO HAVE
TO TRY TO FIND OUT WHICH OF THE 21 PROSECUTORS HAS THE DOCUMENTS. MAYBE A PROSECUTOR MISSED
A MEETING, MAYBE THEY WEREN'T ON THAT COMMITTEE. MAYBE THEY GOT RID OF THEIR COPY SO THEY HAVE
TO CHASE THE DOCUMENTS AND THEY ARE NOT IN A CENTRAL REPOSSIBLE TRI. THEY MIGHT NOT BE
COMPLYING WITH RETENTION LAWS BECAUSE IT'S UNCLEAR IF ACLU-NJ SO THERE MATE NOT BE A
PROSECUTOR MIGHT GET A DOCUMENT AND DISCARD IT BECAUSE THE REKTSDZ RETENTION LAW MIGHT
NOT APPLY IN THOSE CIRCUMSTANCES WHICH IS UNCLEAR BUT IF WE WALKED AWAY THERE HERE TODAY
WITH WHAT WE WOULD CONSIDER TO BE A LOSS AND THAT LOSS WAS THAT THIS COURT MADE IT CLEAR
THAT EVERYTHING THAT PROSECUTORS ARE RECEIVING FROM ACLU-NJ DOING ACLU-NJ BUSINESS IS
A PUBLIC RECORD BECAUSE THEY ARE IN THEIR OFFICIAL KAFTSZ EVEN WHEN THEY ARE WORKING
WITH THE NETWORKING ORGANIZATION AND THAT THOSE DOCUMENTS SHOULD BE MAINTAINED AND PRODUCED
PURSUANT TO OPRA, THEN WE WOULD AT LEAST STILL HAVE THE ENTRANCE PARN SI THAT WE NEED.
JUSTICE PATTERSON: : THAT'S NOT BEFORE US. THE SPECIFIC DOCUMENTS THAT ARE
IN AT ISSUE ARE NOT BEFORE US. IF YOU'RE ASKING THE COURT TO SAY IF, HYPOTHETICALLY IT
FOUND THAT ACLU-NJ IS NOT A PUBLIC AGENCY FOR PURPOSES OF OPRA, THAT THE DOCUMENTS
NONTHELESS HAVE TO BE PRODUCED BY THE 21 PROSECUTORS, WE HAVEN'T LOOKED AT THE, AT
LEAST I HAVEN'T RSHGS EVALUATED, AS I UNDERSTAND IT, WE HAVE 1 ISSUE BEFORE US AND THAT'S
IS ACLU-NJ A PUBLIC AGENCY OR ISN'T IT. THE COURT'S NOT IN A POSITION ON THIS CASE IN
WHICH THE CATEGORIES OF DOCUMENTS ARE NOT IN THE SIR PETITION. MR. GRIFFIN:
THE CATEGORIES OF DOCUMENTS, SO IF THE THE COURT FOUNDS THAT ACLU-NJ THERE COULD BE A
RULING WHETHER OR NOT THE DOCUMENTS COULD BE SUBJECT TO OPRA. JUSTICE
PATTERSON: : ALL I'M SAYING IS WE HAVE 1 ISSUE BEFORE US. MR. GRIFFIN: AND
THE COURT MADE IT CLEAR THE THE WAY TO GET RECORDS FROM THE VOLUNTEER DEPARTMENT WAS
THROUGH THE FIRE DISTRICT SO WHAT I'M SUCKING IS THAT THE COURT SHOULD MAKE IT EQUALLY
CLEAR SO WE'RE NOT BACK HERE WHERE THE PROSECUTORS ARE ARGUING OR THE THE WHERE THE
PROSECUTORS DENY REQUEST AND THAT HAS HAPPENED WHERE THE THE REQUEST ARE WHERE THIS IS
ACLU-NJ RECORDS. SOME PROSECUTORS OFFICE HAVE FULFILLED A REQUEST FOR DOCUMENTS.
JUSTICE SOLOMON: JUS, WE DON'T MAKE ADVISORY OPINIONS R WE WILL WILL RULE ON THE ISSUE
BEFORE THE THE COURT AND THEN PEOPLE WILL PROCEED ACCORDINGLY. MR. GRIFFIN:
I DON'T THINK IT WOULD BE ADVISORY ANY MORE THAN VER RAI WAS ADVISORY WHEN THE COURT SUGGESTED
THAT WAS THE THE WAY TO GET THOSE DOCUMENTS THROUGH THE FIRE DISTRICT WHICH WAS SUBJECT
TO OPRA SO BUT AGAIN, SO THEN THAT COULD BE, IF '{^}THE THE COURT ISN'T GOING TO MAKE
THAT RULING BECAUSE IT DEEMS IT TO BE ADVISORY THEN THAT WOULD BE A DANGER IN THE RULING.
JUSTICE SOLOMON: DIDN'T THINK THAT'S WHAT YOU WERE ASKING FOR BUT OKAY I GET
YOU. MR. GRIFFIN: THAT WOULD BE A DANGER IF THE COURT ISN'T WILLING TO SAY
THAT THE DOCUMENTS COULD BE OBTAINED THROUGH THE COUNT PROSECUTOR'S OFFICE BECAUSE THEY ARE
-- THEY DO MEET THE DEFINITION OF GOVERNMENT RECORDS THEN THAT MEANS WE HAVE TO LITIGATE
THIS ALL OVER AGAIN AND BATTLE THIS WITH THE THE COUNT PROSECUTORS AS TO WHAT IS OR ISN'T
IN THEIR POSITION SUBJECT TO OPRA. SO I WANT TO GO BACK TO WHY ACLU-NJ IS
SUBJECT TO OPRA AND I DISAGREE WITH MS. THOMPSON THAT THE COUNTY'S PROSECUTOR IS A POLITICAL
PROSECUTOR. IT DOESN'T FIT. I THE TO MAKE IT FIT. IT DOESN'T FIT WITH THE WAY
THAT NEW JERSEY HAS ALWAYS DEEMED A POLITICAL SUN DIVISION TO BE BUT I THINK YOUR KWE
YOU'RE QUESTIONING JUSZ TIES TISZ WEINER APP TER WAS SO ON POINT ABOUT THE COUNT PROSECUTOR
ITSELF BEING SUBJECT TO OPRA AND PERHAPS THE ACLU-NJ BEING MORE AN INSTRUMENT ALTD OF THE
EXECUTIVE BRANCH AND THE GOVERNOR AND THE ATTORNEY GENERAL AND TO ME THE WORST POLICE
OUTCOME IN THE WORLD WOULD BE IF WE WALKED AWAY QUESTIONING WHETHER THE COUNTY PROSECUTOR'S
OFFICE WAS SUBJECT TO OPRA. I WOULD HAVE LOFT ABOUT A DECADE OF WORK TRYING TO MAKE THEM
TRANSPARENT SO I'M HOPING THE COURT DOESN'T FIND THAT TO BE. JUSTICE PATTERSON: :
A GENERAL QUESTION. YOU ARE PROBABLY 1 OF THE MOST IF NOT MOST EXPERIENCED LITIGATE TORE
IN THE STATE ON THIS ISSUE. WHAT IS THE STATUTORY BASIS FOR THE COUNTY PROSECUTOR'S OFFICE
BEING SUBJECT TO OPRA. MR. GRIFFIN: SO I WAS LOOKING IT AT THE STATUTE TO
SAY THAT. NO COUNTY PROSECUTOR HAS EVER DISPUTED THAT THERE'S SUBJECT TO OPRA. I CAN CITE
HALF A DOZEN CASES AT LEAST THAT ARE PUBLISHED THAT INVOLVE COUNTY PROSECUTORS. I THINK
IT IS THE FACT THAT THEY ARE A PRINCIPLE DEPARTMENT OF EXECUTIVE BRANCH. THEY FALL IN
THIS UNIQUE NATURE WHERE ON 1 HAND THE COUNTY IS PAYING BUDGET. ON THE OTHER HAND, THERE'S
PLENTY OF CASE LAW THAT SAYS THEY ARE EXECUTIVE OFFERS. THEY ARE A PRINCIPAL REPRESENTATION
OF THE EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENT SO THAT'S WHY I THINK WE FIND COUNTY PROSECUTORS SUBJECT TO
OPRA. JUSTICE PATTERSON: : ISN'T THAT ISN'T THAT THE CABINET, THE DEPARTMENT.
MR. GRIFFIN: I DON'T KNOW. I DON'T THINK SO. 'I THINK IT'S TALKING ABOUT.
JUSTICE PATTERSON: : HOW ABOUT OFFICE, DIVISION BOARD, BUREAU, OFFICE,
COMMISSION, OFFICE. OFFICE OF THE COUNTY PROSECUTOR IN THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH?
MR. GRIFFIN: THEY -- PERHAPS. BUT I THINK IN MY BRIEF I DID NOT BRIEF POLITICAL SUBDIVISION
BEFORE THIS COURT. I BRIEFED THAT THE ACLU-NJ IS REALLY AN INSTRUMENT ALTD OF THE ATTORNEY
GENERAL AND OF THE GOVERNOR AND THAT'S BECAUSE ACLU-NJ MEMBERSHIP IS APPOINTED 100 PERCENT
BY THE GOVERNOR. HE PICKS WHO THE THE MEMBERS OF THE ACLU-NJ WILL BE BY PICKING WHO THEIR
COUNTY PROSECUTOR'S OFFICE ARE. THE ATTORNEY GENERAL CONTROLS THEM IN THE SENSE THAT THE
ATTORNEY GENERAL DID NOT THINK THAT ACLU-NJ COULD USE OR THAT THE COUNTY PROSECUTORS CAN
LET APPS REPRESENT ACLU-NJ THE ATTORNEY GENERAL COULD ORDER IT TO STOP, THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
CAN SUPERSEDE COUNTY PROSECUTORS, THERE'S THIS WHOLE PROCESS. JUSTICE PATTERSON:
: LET ME STOP YOU. ACLU-NJ IS AN INN STUMENTALITY OF THE GOVERNOR. WHEN THE GOVERNOR APPOINTS
A PROSECUTOR, I SUSPECT IT'S SPLAR TO WHEN THE PROSECUTOR GOVERNOR NOM NATSZ A JUDGE.
IT DOESN'T, THE GOVERNOR DOESN'T TALK ABOUT WHAT ORGANIZATIONS HE MIGHT END UP INVOLVED
WITH. THE GOVERNOR DOESN'T SAY AI APPOINT YOU COUNTY PROSECUTOR FOR THE FOLLOWING TERM
AND THEREFORE THAT MAKES YOU A MEMBER OF ACLU-NJ. MR. GRIFFIN: RIGHT I THINK
THE ADMISSION HAS TO BE HERE THAT IT DOESN'T NECESSARILY CLEARLY AND EXPRESSLY JUST LIKE
THE COUNTY PROSECUTOR I DON'T THINK, FITS WITHIN THE DEFINITION. AND YOU MADE A STATEMENT
EARLIER, JUSTICE PATERSON THAT NO 1'S EVER COME TO THIS COURT BEFORE ASKING THE COURT
TO IGNORE THE DEFINITION. I WOULD DISAGREE WITH THAT AND THE CASES SUSSEX COMMONS VERSUS
RUTGERS UNIVERSITY AND I THINK THAT THE COURT, IF IF YOU READ THE DECISION CLOSELY, THE
COURT NEVER CONCLUDES THAT RUTGERS LAW CLINIC WOULDN'T FALL INTO THIS RIGID DEFINITION
OF PUBLIC AGENCY AND IN FACT JUSTICE ALBIN'S DECENT TALKS ABOUT THAT BUT THE COURT SAID
WE'RE GOING TO AVOID AN RESULT. THE LEGISLATURE COULDN'T HAVE MET THIS THIS LAW SCHOOL
CLINIC HAS ALL OF ITS FILES OPEN. JUSTICE PATTERSON: : THERE'S A LOT OF
ATTORNEY/CLIENT PRIVILEGE IN THE CONTENT OF THAT DECISION. MR. GRIFFIN: RIGHT
BUT THE COURT DOESN'T SAY IT'S A PUBLIC AGENT AND I YOU CAN ASSERT AN ATTORNEY/CLIENT
PRIVILEGE. IT SAYS IT'S NOT A PUBLIC AGENCY AND SO WHAT WE'RE ASKING THE COURT TO DO HERE
IS, AND THERE'S LANGUAGE IN LAFAYETTE YARD THAT TALKS ABOUT FORM OVER FUNCTION. THE
PROSECUTOR. JUSTICE PATTERSON: : THIS IS NOT LAFAYETTE YARD EITHER. I MOON
I WAS LOOKING FOR AN ANALOGY THERE BUT IT'S NOT A CLOSE ANALOGY. MR. GRIFFIN:
I WILL TELL YOU THAT I SEARCHED THE NATION HIGH AND LOW TO TRIED TRY TO FIND AN ORGANIZATION
LIKE ACLU-NJ THAT WHERE ESSENTIALLY THERE IS NO DISTINCTION REALLY BETWEEN ACLU-NJ AND
THE PROSECUTOR'S OFFICE. IT SAYS IF THEY JUST SAY UM, WE'RE IN THIS ROOM, ALL THE PROSECUTORS
AND WE'RE CALLING OURSELVES ACLU-NJ. ON PAPER YES, THEY HAVE A BAFRJ ACCOUNT, THAT SORT
OF THINGS BUT ON. JUSTICE PATTERSON: : RESPECTFULLY I THINK ON PAPER REALLY
MATTERS IN THIS AND I THINK YOU COULD SAY IN VERRY YOU COULD HAVE PLEAD THE SAME ARGUMENT
IN VERRY THAT THIS VOLUNTEER FIRE DEPARTMENT INTERESTS TOTALLY, AND YET THE COURT SAID
NO, NOW IT MAY NOT MAKE A DIFFERENCE ULTIMATELY WHETHER THE DOCUMENTS WERE AVAILABLE BUT
THE COURT SAID NO BECAUSE IT IS NOT AN INSTRUMENTALITY OF A POLITICAL SUBDIVISION.
IT'S AARON INSTRUMENTALITY OF AN INN INSTRUMENTALITY AND IT'S OUTSIDE THE
DEFINITION SO I CAN'T SPEAK TOW WHAT'S GOING ON IN SUSSEX COMMONS. I WAS NOT ON THAT CASE.
I THINK IN VERRY AND IN A NUMBER OF OUR CASES OVER THE YEARS WE LOOK VERY CAREFULLY AT THAT
DEFINITION SOME. MR. GRIFFIN: I THINK VERRY IS FACTUAL ILY DIFFERENT BECAUSE
YOU DON'T HAVE CONSTITUTIONAL OFFICERS WHO ARE THE SOLE MEMBERS OF THE ORGANIZATION AND
THERE'S NOT THAT EXTRA LEVEL AND IT FEELS DIFFERENT. ACLU-NJ FEELS MUCH MORE LIKE A
PUBLIC AGENCY THAN THE LEGAL OF MUNICIPALITIES WHICH REALLY DOES FUNCTION AS A SPRATD ENTITY
THAN THE TOWNS THEY ARE REPRESENTING. JUSTICE PATTERSON: : AND YET THEY ARE
IN. MR. GRIFFIN: AND THEY ARE IN SO TO ME IT'S DIFFICULT, EVEN THOUGH IT'S
HARD TO ARTICULATE UNDER THE STATUTE BECAUSE OF THE UNIQUE NATURE OF THE COUNTY PROSECUTOR,
IT'S DIFFICULT TO UNDERSTAND WHY THE LEAGUE OF MUNICIPALITIES WOULD BE SUBJECT TO OPRA
BUT THE COUNT PROSECUTORS ASSOCIATION ISN'T. JUSTICE PATTERSON: : ARE YOU
TELLING US THAT WHEN YOU LOOK AT THE STATUTE YOU CAN'T FIND AND I'M NOT SAYING THIS IN
ANY NEGATIVE WAY BECAUSE I KNOW IF THERE'S ANYBODY WOULD BE ABLE TO FINDS IT, IT'S YOU,
YOU CAN'T FIND A SUBSECTION OF THE STATUTE IN WHICH ACLU-NJ, I KEEP FORGETTING THE NAME,
ACLU-NJ WOULD FIT. MR. GRIFFIN: NO, I THINK IT'S AN INSTRUMENTALITY OF THE
EXECUTIVE BRANCH AND THAT'S WHAT I ARGUED IN THE BRIEF AND I JUSTICE WEINER APARTMENT
TER YOU SAID THAT ISN'T IT TELLING BY HAVING THE ASSISTANT PROSECUTORS REPRESENT THEM
AND COUNTY PROSECUTOR PROSECUTOR'S OFFICE ENTER APPEARANCES THAT IT'S ALMOST A CONCESSION
THAT THEY ARE A PUBLIC AGENCY AND THEY ARE OPERATING LIKE A PUBLIC AGENCY I THINK THIS
IS DIFFERENT THAN OTHER CASES WHERE YOU WOULD HAVE A SET OF FACTORS. 1 FACTOR NOT A DISPOSITIVE
FACTOR BEING WAS IT CREATED BY A STATUTE. IT'S DISPOSITIVE IF IT'S CREATED BY A STATUTE,
DISPOSITIVE, THEY ARE GOING TO BE SUBJECT TO OPRA. CHIEF JUSTICE STUART RABNER:
CAN YOU FOCUS ON THE LANGUAGE OF THE FIRST CLAUSE THAT I THINK YOU'RE STEERING US TO.
ARE YOU LOOKING AT THE LANGUAGE INSTRUMENTALITY ARE CREATED BY SUCH DEPARTMENT.
MR. GRIFFIN: YES I THINK THAT THE COUNT PROSECUTORS ASSOCIATION IS AN INSTRUMENTALITY
OF THE STATE BRANCH, OF THE GOVERNMENT. CHIEF JUSTICE STUART RABNER: WHAT IS
THE DEPARTMENT THAT CREATED THEM OR THEY ARE WITHIN. MR. GRIFFIN: I THINK
THEY ARE WITHIN, JUST LIKE THE PROSECUTORS ARE IN THE ATTORNEY GENERAL DEPARTMENT. IT'S
WITHIN THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH. THE COUNT PROSECUTORS PLAY THIS UNIQUE ROLE WHERE THEY
ARE BOTH, THE LEGISLATURE SAID WITHIN THE COUNTY GOVERNMENT AND THEN ALSO WITHIN THE EXECUTIVE
BRANCH. JUSTICE PATTERSON: : THE DEPARTMENT OF LAW AND PUBLIC SAFETY, WE'RE
TALKING ABOUT PRINCIPAL DEPARTMENTS, IS THAT THE DEPARTMENT THAT THE PROSECUTORS ARE IN.
MR. GRIFFIN: I THINK SO, YES. AND I THINK THAT SERVE AS AN INSTRUMENTALITY
OF THAT DEPARTMENT. THE THE SOLE PURPOSE IS JUST SO THAT THEY CAN HELP FORMULATE THIS
POLL AND I THIS WAY IN WHICH THEY ARE COLLABORATING TOGETHER. JUSTICE
PATTERSON: : PROSECUTORS ARE AN INSTRUMENTALITY. MR. GRIFFIN: NO I THINK THE
PROSECUTORS ARE WITHIN THE DEPARTMENT AND THE INSTRUMENTALITY IS ACLU-NJ.
JUSTICE WAINER-APTER: SO THE PRINCIPAL DEPARTMENT YOU SAID IS THE DEPARTMENT OF LAW AND PUBLIC
SAFETY. ARE THE PROSECUTORS OFFICES AN OFFICE WITHIN THE DEPARTMENT OF LAW AND PUBLIC
SAFETY AND THEN ACLU-NJ IS AN INSTRUMENTALITY OF THAT OFFICE? MR. GRIFFIN:
I DON'T SEE -- IT'S HARD TO MAKE THE DISTINCTION BECAUSE THE ELEPHANT IN THE ROOM IS JUST
THE WAY IN WHICH ACLU-NJ RATES AND HOW THERE'S REALLY NOT A DISTINCTION BETWEEN THE COUNT
PROSECUTORS THEMSELVES AND ACLU-NJ SO WHAT ARE THE THE COUNT PROSECUTORS ARE AND THEY ARE
SUBJECT TO OPRA, ACLU-NJ SHOULD BE AS WELL BECAUSE THERE IS NO DISTINCTION AND.
JUSTICE PATTERSON: : SO YOU WOULD SAY THAT WE SHOULD CONSIDER ACLU-NJ TO BE PART OF THE
DEPARTMENT OF LAW AND PUBLIC SAFETY SN. MR. GRIFFIN: OR ESSENTIALLY 1 IN THE SAME
AS THE COUNTY PROSECUTORS R BAUZ THERE REALLY ISN'T A DISTINCTION BASED ON ALL THE FACTS.
JUSTICE PATTERSON: : LET'S THINK ABOUT WHAT THAT MEANS. WHAT YOU'RE SAYING
A THE COUNTY PROSECUTORS WITHIN THE DEPARTMENT OF LAW AND PUBLIC SAFETY WHICH IS, I DON'T
BELIEVE IS THIS COURT'S EVER VIEWED IT THAT WAY AND B, THAT WE SHOULD THEN LOOP IN ACLU-NJ
AS PART -- AS PART OF WHAT IS ON THIS FLOOR, THE OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL AND THE
DEPARTMENT OF LAW AND PUBLIC SAFETY. MR. GRIFFIN: I DON'T KNOW THAT IT'S PART
OF THE LAW AND PUBLIC SAFETY. WHATEVER -- WHAT I'M SAYING WHATEVER THE COURT DEEMS THE
COUNT PROSECUTOR TO BE, WHETHER IT'S THE OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH OR -- THERE IS
THERE IS NO DISTINCTION BETWEEN ACLU-NJ AND THE COUNT PROSECUTOR SO YOU SUBSTITUTE COUNTY
PROSECUTOR FOR WHATEVER YOU PUT THE. JUSTICE PATTERSON: : ISN'T THAT EXACTLY
WHAT AN INSTRUMENTALITY IS? WHEN YOU LOOK AT, THE INSTRUMENTALITY IS SOMETHING THAT IS
PUT TOGETHER AND CREATED AND USED BY THE IS POLITICAL SUBDIVISION. MR.
GRIFFIN: I THINK THERE'S A SLIGHT DIFFERENCE YOU BECAUSE INSTRUMENTALITY DOES SUGGEST
SOME SEPARATENESS AND I DON'T THINK THERE'S ANY SEPARATENESS HERE AND I THINK THAT'S WHY
IT'S UNLIKE THE MUNICIPAL CLERKS, THAT'S WHY IT'S UNCLOO LIKE THE CHIEFS OF PLEASE.
JUSTICE PATTERSON: : SO IF SOMEBODY IS AN APP GO GETS A JOB FOR AN ASSISTANT
PROSECUTOR THEY ARE WORKING FOR DANGER. MR. GRIFFIN: THEY ARE AN EMPLOYEE.
JUSTICE PATTERSON: : I'M NOT TALKING ABOUT. AN EMPLOYEE IS BACK IS EMPLOYED
BY ACLU-NJ. MR. GRIFFIN: YES, IF THE COUNT PROSECUTORS ARE DOING ACLU-NJ WORK
IS THE COUNT PROSECUTOR'S WORK. SO THERE'S NO DIFFERENCE SO K P.A. N.J. IN A NAME IS
THE ALL THE WORK THAT C PAFRJ DOES IS THE SAME WORK AS THE COUNTY POLICY. THEY DEVELOP
POLICIES. THAT ITS WHY I'M SAYING THERE'S NO DISTINCTION SO WHEREVER THE COURT PUTS THE
COUNTY PROSECUTOR INTO OPRA, YOU SUBSTITUTE ACLU-NJ IN THE SAME PLACE BASED ON THE SAME
FACTS. I DON'T THINK THAT ANY ORGANIZATION IS GOING TO COME TO THE COURT WITH THE SAME
FACTS BECAUSE NO OTHER ORGANIZATION IS OPERATING IN THIS WAY WHERE IT'S JUST THE PROSECUTORS
DECIDED TO HAVE AN ASSOCIATION. JUSTICE WAINER-APTER: WHEN WAS CPANJ CREATED
AND WHY? I KNOW THEY ARE OFFICIAL STATEMENT AS TO WHY THEY EXIST BUT WHAT YEAR WAS IF
AND WHY DID THEY DECIDE TO INCORPORATE AS A PRIVATE ENTITY RATHER THAN JUST BEING THIS IS
THE E-MAIL LIST OF ALL 21 COUNTY PROSECUTORS. MR. GRIFFIN: SO MY HURJ IS THAT
MR. GRAMICCIONI CAN ANSWER THAT QUESTION MORE PRECISELY. THE RECORD HERE IS VERY SPARSZ.
THAT'S ANOTHER ISSUE I BRIEFED IN MY BRIEF IN THESE SORT OF CASE AND OPRA CASE IN GENERAL
I KNOW I SAID IT BEFORE, IT'S DID HE VIF TO DPETD DISCOVERY SO THE ONLY INFORMATION WE HAVE
IS JUST THIS BARE AMOUNT OF INFORMATION THAT WE WERE ABLE TO SCOUR OURSELVES BUT MY
RECOLLECTION WAS THAT IT WAS IN THE 50s. I DON'T THINK IT WAS SOME NEFARIOUS TAEMENTD
TO AVOID A RECORDS LAW BUT I DON'T THINK THAT WOULD CON -- THAT THAT'S THE REASON WHY YOU
WOULD NEED IT. THE COURT: WAS IT CREATED BY THE ATTORNEY GENERAL.
MR. GRIFFIN: I DON'T THINK IT'S IN THE RECORD OR I'M NOT FAMILIAR WITH IT TO KNOW. BUT
CERTAINLY THE ATTORNEY GENERAL EXPERTS TREMENDOUS CONTROL OVER CPANJ. THE COURT:
HOW. MR. GRIFFIN: AS I SAID, THE ATTORNEY GENERAL TELLS JUSTICE SOLOMON
REFERRED TO THIS. CALLS THE MEETINGS. THE. CHIEF JUSTICE STUART RABNER: HOW
DO YOU KNOW THAT. JUSTICE SOLOMON: I DON'T SPEAK AS AN AUTHORITY ON THESE
THINGS. CHIEF JUSTICE STUART RABNER: HOW DO YOU KNOW THAT. MR. GRIFFIN:
I THINK THERE'S SOME INFORMATION IN THE COMPLAINT ABOUT THAT. I THINK ALSO THE ATTORNEY
GENERAL, LIKE I SAID, THE ATTORNEY GENERAL COULD ORDER THE PROSECUTORS THEMSELVES TO DO
SOMETHING WHICH THEREFORE IS ORDERING CPANJ TO DO SOMETHING BECAUSE THERE'S NO DISTINCTION.
TRERM. JUSTICE PATTERSON: : BEFORE WE AGREE THAT THERE'S 0 DISTINCTION BETWEEN
THE 21 COUNTY AT THIS AND CPA N, WHAT'S YOUR AURMENTD? MR. GRIFFIN: MY
ARGUMENT IS THERE IS 0 DISTINCTION SO THE CPA N.J. ISLESS A PUBLIC AGENCY THAT ACTUALLY
CPANJ MORE THAN GOING TO THE COUNTY PROSECUTOR DZ BECAUSE IF THE COURT FINDS THAT CPA
NJ ISN'T A PUBLIC AGENCY THAT MEANS ALL OF THE COMMUNICATIONS THAT HE. JUSTICE
PATTERSON: : BUT RESPECTFULLY OUR ROLE HERE IS NO THE TO DECIDE WHAT BENEFITS C PAFRJ
AND WHAT DOESN'T. WE HAVE 1 ROLE AND THAT IS 1 ROLE THERE THIS CASE AND THAT IS TO FIGURE
OUT IF THE THE LEGISLATURE, UNDERSTAND THE PLAIN LANGUAGE OF THE STATUTE, WHETHER THIS
CPANJ IS IN OR OUT. MR. GRIFFIN: RIGHT BUT I THIS THE COURT DOES LOOK AT
RESULTS AND I I WOULD SUGGEST IT'S AN ISN'T A PUBLIC AGENCY GIVEN ALL THE FACTS THAT WE'VE
GIVEN YOU AROUND THE THE EXTENTS AND ACCIDENT CLUSZIVE USE OF GOVERNMENT RESOURCE THAT
NO OTHER NONGOVERN @ SAYING SI WOULD EVER HAVE AND GIVEN THE FACT THAT A CONSEQUENCE OF THE
DECISION WOULD MEAN THAT THE COMMUNICATIONS THAT THE ATTORNEY GENERAL HAD WITH CPANJ
TO MAKE POLICY WOULD THEN BE SUBJECT TO PUBLIC ACCESS. CHIEF JUSTICE STUART
RABNER: DO YOU KNOW HOW OTHER ASSOCIATIONS LIKE THE CHIEF OF POLICE, THE WARD ENSZ, ETC,
ARE FUNDSED? MR. GRIFFIN: YES, SO I DON'T THINK FUNDING ALONE IS A DISPOSITIVE
FACT. THE IT IS A FACTOR THAT THE COURT CONSIDERED THAT A CERTAIN PERCENT.
CHIEF JUSTICE STUART RABNER: NOT A TRICK QUESTION. MR. GRIFFIN: THEYLESS
RECEIVED SOME MEMBERSHIP DUES, CONFERENCE REGISTRATION INTSZ THAT SORT OF THING. I'M
NOT GOING TO CONCEDE THAT THEY AREN'T SUBJECT TO OWE. THEY SEEM TO BE A COMPLETELY DIFFERENT
CREATURE. THEY ARE NOT CONDUCTING ALL OF THEIR BUSINESS WITHIN BUSINESS HOURS. THEY ARE
NOT USING COUNTY STAFF TO STAFF THEIR CONVENTIONS R I ENCOURAGE YOU TO READ MY BRIEF BECAUSE
WE DID PROVIDE THAT INFORMATION ABOUT HOW THE THE COUNT GOVERNMENT WILL THAT I CPANJ SO
THEIR ATTORNEYS CAN GO AND WORK THE EVENT SO THEY ARE ACTING LIKE A PUBLIC AGENCY AND
THAT'S FINE BECAUSE THEY ARE 1 AND WE JUST JUAN THE RULING SAYING, YES, YOU ARE A PUBLIC
AGENCY, YES, YOU HAVE TO COMPLY WITH THE RECORDS REQUEST AND HAVE SOME TRANCE PARNS SI.
JUSTICE FASCIALE: I'D LIKE TO GO BACK TO THE ACTUAL WORDS OF THE STATUTE FOR
A MINUTE. OR OTHER INSTRUMENTALITY WITHIN OR CREATED BY SUCH DEPARTMENT IS A GENERAL
PHRASE. THAT GENERAL PHRASE FOLLOWS SPECIFIC WORDS. FOR THE MATTER OF STATUTORY
INTERPRETATION, THE GENERAL HAS TO BE LIKE THE SPECIFIC. SO THE SPECIFIC WORDS ARE EITHER
A PRINCIPAL DEPARTMENT IN THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH OR DIVISION BOARD, BUREAU OR OFFICE. THE
USE OF THE -- WHEREVER WE FIT THE COUNTY PROSECUTOR IS WHERE WE FIT CPANJ. DO THE
COUNT PROSECUTOR FIT WITHIN PRINCIPAL DENTS. MR. GRIFFIN: I THINK THEY MORE
LIKELY FIT IN OFFICE. JUSTICE FASCIALE: SO WHY DO YOU SAY THAT.
MR. GRIFFIN: WELL, I BELIEVE THAT THE PRINCIPAL DEPARTMENTS MIGHT BE LIKE LAW AND PUBLIC
SAFETY OR DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT BUT I THINK THAT. JUSTICE WAINER-APTER:
IN OUR CONSTITUTION, ISN'T THERE A LIMIT ON THE NUMBER OF DEPARTMENTS THIS THEY CAN BE
WRITTEN IN THE CONSTITUTION. MR. GRIFFIN: THAT'S MY RECOLLECTION. I THINK
IT WAS 26 OR SOMETHING BUT THERE IS A LIMIT. BUT I THINK THAT. JUSTICE PATTERSON:
: IF THE PRINCIPAL DEPARTMENTS. MR. GRIFFIN: IF IT'S IN THE OFFICE, ANY
INSTRUMENT ALTD WITHIN OR HE CREATED BY THAT OFFICE THAT WOULD MAKE IT FALL WITHIN THE
DEFINITION. I THINK THAT THERE IS A WAY. OF WE BRIEFED IT TO GET IT TO FALL WITHIN THE
PRECISE HYPOTHETICAL PER TECHNICAL DEFINITION BUT I THINK THAT TO DO THAT WOULD -- TO
INSIST ON HAVING TO DO THAT AND I UNDERSTAND THE DESIRE TO DO THAT, THE COURT DOESN'T
WANT TO CREATE LAW BUT TO INSIST ON HAVING TO DO THAT, IGNORES CASE LAW LIKE SUSSEX COMMONS
AND IT IGNORES THE VERY PRECISE FACTUAL CIRCUMSTANCES HERE WHERE THERE'S REALLY NOT A
DISTINCTION BETWEEN THE 2. JUSTICE PATTERSON: : RESPECTFULLY TO SAY THAT
WE'RE INSISTING ON TRYING TO FIGURE OUT IF THIS IS, IF CPANJ IS IN OR OUT OF THE DEFINITION,
HOW MANY CASES WOULD WE HAVE SAID THAT OUR JOB IS TO NOT TO DECIDE IF THE LETSCH I SAY LAY
TOUR'S POLICY IS GOOD BAD OR INDIFFERENT. OUR JOB IS TO LOOK AT THE LIVE I SAY LATETIVE
INTENT AND THE BEST KWATD TORE OF LEGISLATIVE INTENT IS LEGISLATIVE LANGUAGE. THAT'S OUR,
1 OF THE FUNDAMENTAL PURPOSES OF OUR COURT. MR. GRIFFIN: I DO. I UNDERSTAND
THAT AND THAT IS ABSOLUTELY. JUSTICE PATTERSON: : IT'S NOT A HOBBY.
MR. GRIFFIN: I RESPECT YOUR JOB INTITSZ DIFFICULT. IT'S ABSOLUTELY THE COURT'S ROLE
BUT WHAT I'M SUGGESTING THE COURTLESS LOOKS AT M CERTS RESULTS SO JUST LIKE THE RUTGERS
LAW CLINIC COULDN'T HAVE MET THIS THEY WOULD BE SUBJECT TO OPRA. I DON'T THINK THAT THE
LEGISLATURELESS MEANT THAT WILL COUNTIES CAN'T FORM THESE ORGANIZATIONS AND USE ALL THEIR
RESOURCES AND TOWNS CAN'T BUT SOMEHOW A CONSTITUTIONAL OFFICER CAN. I THINK THAT THAT
WASN'T THE INTENTION OF THE LEGISLATURE TO BE ABLE TO ALLOW A GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEE, A
SPECIAL CONSTITUTIONAL OFFICER TO CREATE, TO HAVE AN ORGANIZATION THAT THEY FULLY FUND
AND TREAT AS IF IF IT'S THEIR OWN ACTUAL GOVERNMENT OFFICE, THAT THEY ARE USING ALL
THE RESOURCES OF THEIR OFFICE TO DO THE WORK OF THAT ORGANIZATION AND I DON'T THINK THAT WAS
THE THE LEGISLATURE'S INTENT. CHIEF JUSTICE STUART RABNER: THE DOCTRINE OF
RESULTS THAT THE COURT REFERS TO TIME TO TIME TYPICALLY REFERS TO A READING OF THE STATUTE
THAT MIGHT SUGGEST THAT THE LEGISLATURE HAS DONE SOMETHING THAT IT COULDN'T HAVE MEANT
TO BECAUSE IT'S ABSURD. ARE THERE CASES WHERE THAT WORKS IN THE OPPOSITE WHERE THE PREMISE
IS IT'S ABSURD THAT THE LEGISLATURE DIDN'T SAY SOMETHING THAT WE THINK THEY SHOULD HAVE
SAID. MR. GRIFFIN: OFF THE THE TOP OF MY HEAD I CAN'T THINK OF 1, BUT I DON'T
KNOW WHY IT WOULDN'T APPLY BECAUSE I THINK WHEN YOU LOOK, AND I PUT THIS IN MY BRIEF TOO,
WHEN YOU LOOK AT HOW THE LEGISLATURE WENT FROM BOTH THE DEFINITION OF GOVERNMENT RECORD
IN OPRA VERSUS THE RIGHT TO KNOW LAW AS WELL AS THE DEFINITION OF PUBLIC AGENCY FROM THE
RIGHT TO KNOW LAW, IT'S CLEAR ANTE ACTUALLY IF YOU LOOK AT THE LEGISLATIVE HISTORY, THERE'S
A PUBLIC HEARING TRANSCRIPT THAT THIS COURT'S CITED TODAY BEFORE THAT IT'S CLEAR THAT
THEY WERE TRYING TO EXPAND THE DEFINITION OF PUBLIC AGENCY TO INCLUDE AGENCIES OTHER THAN
TRADITIONAL GOVERNMENT AGENCIES AND THE REASON WHY I SAY THAT IS BECAUSE THERE'S DISCUSSION
IN PUBLIC (INAUDIBLE) ABOUT THE LAFAYETTE ORGANIZATION WHICH THIS THEN COURT THEN LATER
FOUND WAS SUBJECT TO OPRA IS AND SO BY EXPANDING THE DEFINITION OF PUBLIC AGENCY SIGNIFICANTLY
IN OPRA I THINK THERE WAS AN ATTEMPT TO ENSURE THAT ALL THESE ORGANIZATIONS THAT PUBLIC
FISHLSZ COULDN'T CREATE ORGANIZATION TOZ AVOID OPRA AND SO THAT THEY USEDED ALL THIS
LANGUAGE ABOUT INSTRUMENTALITY AND OFFICE AND INDEPENDENT STER RISZ AND FOR WHATEVER REASON
THEY DID THE LANGUAGE, ALTHOUGH I THINK THE FIRST PROVISION CAPTURES IT BECAUSE IT'S AIN
AN INSTRUMENT AH AN OFFICE, FOR WHATEVER REASON IT'S CLEAR THIS HE WOULD LIKE BUT I DON'T
THINK THAT THE LEGISLATURE WOULD INTEND THAT AN OFFICE OR ELECTRIC. JUSTICE
PATTERSON: : BUT LAUGH YET YARD WAS A FIT. IT WAS AN INSTRUMENTALITY OF A MRIJ POLITICAL
SUBDIVISION. MR. GRIFFIN: WELL IT WAS A FIT BECAUSE THE COURT FOUND THAT THE
ENTITY ARGUED THAT THEY WEREN'T CREATED BY STATUTES OR #0RD NANCES. IT WAS A GROUP OF
SPIRITED CITIZENS THAT CAME TOGETHER BUT THE COURT SAID IT STILL FIT BECAUSE THE MAYOR
AND THE COUNSEL STILL CONTROLLED THE MEMBERSHIP SNOOVM BUT IN THE EVENT EARNED IT FIT.
NOTWITHSTANDING THE THE ARGUMENTS THAT WERE MADE BY LAFAYETTE YARD COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT,
LAFAYETTE YARD WAS FOUND TO BE AN INSTRUMENTALITY OR AGENCY CREATED BY A POLITICAL SUBDIVISION.
WE GO TO THE STATUTE AND THAT'S IN. JUSTICE PATTERSON: : YES IT FITS BECAUSE
ITS COURT'S INTERPRETATION. WE'RE ARGUE IT FITS HERE TOO. JUSTICE WAINER-APTER:
AND AND THAT WAS ALL PRIVATE CITIZENS. MR. GRIFFIN: YES BUT ULTIMATELY THAT'S
THE REFERENCE I HAVE TO READ THE SAME CASE AS YOU, I WASN'T INVOLVED IN T THAT'S THE
REFERENCES THAT THEY ARGUED THAT THIS WAS SPIRITED AND PRIVATE CITIZENS AND IT'S A PRIVATE
OERGS AND THE COURT SAID WELL THAT WOULD ELEVATE FORM OVER SUBSTANCE BECAUSE IN REALITY
WHAT'S HAPPENING IS THAT THE THE MAYOR AND THE CITY COUNSEL CONTROL IT SO THAT'S WHAT
WE'RE ASKING THE COURT TO DO HERE. YES THERE'S A PIECE OF PAPER THAT'S FILED THAT TECHNICALLY
MAKES CPANJ A NONPROFIT ASSOCIATION BUT IN REALITY IF YOU LOOK AT ALL THE FACTS, THE
COUNTS ARE DOING ALL OF OF ITS BUSINESS THROUGH THEIR OFFICE SUICIDE IF THE WORST CASE
SCENARIO MEANS WE HAVE TO FILE A REQUEST WITH ALL THE COUNT 1 PROSECUTORS THAT WOULD MAKE
LIFE MUCH MORE DIFFICULT AND THE STATE LESS ENTRANCE PARENT BUT IT'S IMPORTANT THAT WE
CAN STILL GET THE RECORDS THAT WAY. AND SO I THINK THAT WE THINK IT FITS. I THINK JUSTICE
YOU HELPED US GET THERE, BUT I THINK THE THE MEMBERSHIP IS COMPLETELY CONTROLLED. THEY
ARE USING GOVERNMENT, COMPLETELY CONTROLLED BY THE GOVERNOR, THE ATTORNEY GENERAL.
JUSTICE PATTERSON: : LET'S FOCUS ON 1 OTHER AS EXPECT OF THE STATUTE. THE WORDS WITHIN
ARE CREATED BY OR PRINCIPAL DEPARTMENT DIVISION BOARD, BUREAU E COMMISSION OR OTHER
INSTRUMENTALITY WITHIN OR CREATE BY SUCH DEPARTMENT. WITHIN. IS CPANJ BEEN THE
DEPARTMENT OF LAW AND PUBLIC SAFETY? MR. GRIFFIN: WELL, I THINK IT'S WITHIN
OR CREATED BY THE OFFICE. I UNDERSTAND IT SAYS BY SUCH DEPARTMENT BUT I DON'T THINK THAT
THE LEGISLATURE WOULD HAVE INTENDED. JUSTICE PATTERSON: : IT SAYS WITHIN
OR CREATED BY SUCH DEPARTMENT. THAT'S IMPORTANT. WE GOT TO LOOK AT THE ACTUAL LANGUAGE
OF THE STATUTE. SO WE HAVE 2 THINGS HERE. OR IN THE MIDDLE OF THEM SO EITHER 1 HAS TO BE
TRUE. IT HAS TO BE WITHIN THE DEPARTMENT OF LAW AND PUBLIC SAFETY WHICH YOU IDENTIFIED
AS THE PRINCIPAL DEPARTMENT OR IT'S GOT TO BE CREATED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF LAW AND PUBLIC
SAFETY. IS IT EITHER. MR. GRIFFIN: AND I WOULD GO BACK TO ABSURD RESULTS,
THAT I DON'T THINK THAT THE LEGISLATURE INTENDED TO SAY THE PRINCIPAL DENTSD, ANY
INSTRUMENTALITY THAT THEY CREATE IS SUBJECT TO OPRA BUT IF ANY DIVISION OR BOARD OR BUREAU
CREATES AN INSTRUMENT AND USES THE FULL SCOPE OF THEIR OFFICES TO CONDUCT THE PRIVATE
BUSINESS OF THIS PORTION, THAT THAT ORGANIZATION IS NOT SUBJECT TO OPRA. THE LANGUAGE
IN OPRA COULD BE SO MUCH MORE PRECISE IN SO MANY MORE WAYS WHICH IS WHY WE HAVE BEEN HERE
SO MANY TIMES BUT. JUSTICE PATTERSON: : IT'S ALWAYS A PLEASURE. MR.
GRIFFIN: BUT I DON'T THINK THAT THE LETSCH I SAY LAY TOUR INTENDED THAT THESE OTHER ENTITIES,
IF YOU WILL, GOVERNMENT ENTITIES COULD JUST CIRCUMVENT OPRA BY CREATING AN
INSTRUMENTALITY USING THEIR OFFICE TO DO IT. HERE THERE'S JUST REALLY NO DAYLIGHT BETWEEN
THE 2, BETWEEN KRACHLT P.A. N AND THE COUNT PROSECUTORS OFFICE. THEY ARE 1 IN THE SAME
AND EVERYTHING IN MT CASE SHOWS THEY ARE 1 IN THE SAME. CHIEF JUSTICE STUART RABNER:
THANK, COUNSEL. MR. GRIFFIN: THANK YOU. CHIEF JUSTICE STUART RABNER:
MR. GRAMICCIONI. �� MAY IT PLEASE THE COURT, IT'S AN HONOR TO APPEAR BEFORE
YOU TODAY AND REPRESENT KRACHLT P.A. N.J.. ILL DO MY BEST TO ANSWER ANY OF THE QUESTIONS
MY PANEL HAD BUT I WOULD LIKE TO RESPECTFULLY POINT OUT WITH THE EFRTSDZ OF MY ESTEEMED
COLLEAGUES THE FACT THAT THIS COURT IS STILL GRAPPLING AND BASICALLY HAVING TO PERFORM
LEGAL GYM NASZ PARTICULAR TOZ TRY TO ARRIVE AT DEFINING CPANJ AS A PUBLIC AGENCY UNDER
THE OPRA STATUTE, THEY ALREADY DELIBERATED DRAFT INTERESTED OPRA STATUTE I SHOULD SUBMIT
IT SHOULD TELL THE COURT EVERYTHING IT NEEDS TO KNOW IN AFFIRMING THIS DECISION FROM BELOW.
AS HAS BEEN POINTED OUT BY SEVERAL MEMBERS BY THE COURT SHLTHS NOTHING IN THE
OPRA STATUTE PLAIN LANGUAGE SAYS ANYTHING NOR THE PAST PRECEDENCE BY THIS COURT THAT OPRA
APPLIES TO A VOLUNTEER NONPROFIT ORGANIZATION THAT HAPPENS TO BE MADE UP OF PEOPLE WHO
HOLD PUBLIC JOBS, PUBLIC ACTORS. I'M GOING TO OUTLINE THE REASONS WHY I THINK CPANJ AS
FAR CRY FROM THIS DLIB RATHERLY BROAD DEFINITE FLIGSZ OF OPRA. IN THAT STATUTE, WHAT
CONSTITUTES A PUBLIC AGENCY IS CLEAR. IT IS IS BASICALLY, IT APPLIES ONLY TO
INSTRUMENTALITIES WITHIN OR CREATED BY 1 OF THE COVERED ENTITIES AS POINDED OUT BY JUSTICE
PATTERSON AND IN THIS CASE, CPANJ IS A PRIVATE ENTITY THAT'S OUTSIDE THAT DEFINITION.
IT'S NOT A DIRECT INSTRUMENTALITY OF ANY OF THE ENTITIES AND THEREFORE NOT SUBJECT TO
OPRA. IT'S 2 TOO A10 YATED BECAUSE AS THIS COURT PAST PRESIDENT NOTED NO DIRECT CONNECTION
EXISTS AND THAT'S THE SAME EXACT FINDING THAT THE APPELLATE DIVISION BELOW MADE AND HAS BEEN
PREVIOUSLY HELD BY THIS COURT. THE SPECIFIC CRITERIA IN DOESN'T CONSIDER AN ENTITY'S
FORMATION, STRUCTURE OR FUNCTION. AS I SAID, THE FOCUS IS RATHER ON THE DIRECT CONNECTION
OR NEXUS TO AN ENTITY OF A GOVERNMENT OR POLITICAL SUBDIVISION. SETTING ALL
THAT ASIDE, RECORDING THAT DOESN'T EXIST FOR CPANJ, EVEN IF YOU DO CONSIDER CPANJ'S
STRUCTURE FORM OR PURPOSE, IT REAFFIRMS RTD PURPOSE THAT IT IS A PRIVATE ENTITY, NOT A
PUBLIC ENTITY R JUSTICE PATTERSON POINTED OUT AS DID SEVERAL MEMBERS OF THE COURT, THAT
VER RAI IS THE MOST RECENT CASE. THERE'S REAL REALLY VERY LITTLE DAYLIGHT BETWEEN VERRY
AND THE THE CIRCUMSTANCES IN BAR HERE T IN VERRY THE VOLUNTEER FIRE DEPARTMENT WAS CONSIDERED
AN INSTRUMENTALITY OF AN INSTRUMENTALITY OF A POLITICAL SUBDIVISION AND THAT'S AT BEST
WHAT YOU HAVE HERE WITH CPANJ J. NOW THERE'S BEEN SOME DISCUSSION ABOUT FUNDING
AND USE OF GOVERNMENT RESOURCES. I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT TO NOTE THAT IN VERRY, THAT FIRE,
VOLUNTEER FIRE DISTRICT WAS CONTRACTED BY THE FIRE DISTRICT TO PERFORM FIRE PREVENTION
SERVICES. ESSENTIALLY PERFORMING THE DEFINITION OF A TRADITIONAL GOVERNMENT FUNCTION.
THEY GOT PAID TO PERFORM THAT SERVICE. THEIR HOUSE THAT THEY KEPT THE FIRE TRUCKS AND
ALL THE EQUIPMENT IN WAS PAID FOR BY THE MUNICIPALITY BY THE FIRE DISTRICT. THEIR
TRAINING, EVERYTHING ELSE, THEIR EQUIPMENT WAS PAID FOR. WE DON'T HAVE ANY OF THAT HERE.
CPANJ DOESN'T HAVE ANY SUCH FUNDING OR SOURCE AND I WILL GET TO THERY SOURCES AURMENTD
IN A MOMENT BUT IF THE VOLUNTEER FIRE DISTRICT WAS CONSIDERED OUTSIDE OF THE DEFINITION
OF OPRA, CPANJ IS MORE A10 YATDED THAN THAT CIRCUMSTANCE. I WANT TO ADDRESS WHAT I
CHARACTERIZE AS A FALSE DICHOTOMY WHICH MY COLLEAGUES ASKED THIS COURT TO CONSIDER AND
THEY TRY TO CORNER THE CPA N.J. DECISION INTO A BINARY CHOICE OF IT'S EITHER A PUBLIC
AGENCY OR EVERYONE WHO PARTICIPATES IN CPA IN. J IS COMPLITDING ETHICAL VIOLATIONS AND
I WOULD ASK THE COURT NOT TO INDULGE AND TAKE THAT BAIT. THERE IS NOTHING ETHICAL ABOUT
USING GOVERNMENT RESOURCE RZ FOR PROTECTIONAL GROWTH AND VOLUNTEERING ON BEHALF OF A
ORGANIZATION. IF FACTOR IS IT IS ENCOURAGED MUCH AS THE COURT IS AWEARING THE PROSECUTOR'S
COID OF ETHIC HAS A NUMBER OF LIMITATIONS ON WHAT PROORS CAN AND CANNOT DO AND THE 1 OF THE
EXPRESS THINGS THAT PROSECUTORS CAN PERFORM IS PARTICIPATE IN VOLUNTEERED CHARITABLE
ORGANIZATIONS AS LONG AS THERE'S NO SUBSTANTIAL CONFLICT IN DISCHARGING YOUR OFFICIAL DUTIES
AND THERE'S NO ISSUES AS TO I AM PASHLTHD SO PUBLIC APTH TORS ARE PERMITTED TO USE
GOVERNMENT RESOURCE THERE'S THIS FASHION. IT'S GOOD FOR PROFESSIONAL GROIJ, FOR NETWORKING
AND MUCH OF IT IT IS ESSENTIALLY INCIDENTAL WORK AS IT IS BUT REGARDLESS, REGARDLESS OF THE
USE OF RESOURCES OR OTHERWISE, THIS COURT HAS ALREADY HELD THAT THE QUESTION OF WHETHER
AN ENTITY IS SUBJECT TO OPRA DOES NOT TURN ON PUBLIC USE OF FUNDS AND THAT WAS IN THE
VER RAI CASE. THE APPELLATE DIVISION IN THIS CASE GOT IT RIGHT. THIS ENTITY,
THE CPA N.J. IS AT BEST AN INSTRUMENTALITY OF OFFICES. AN INSTRUMENTALITY OF AN
INSTRUMENTALITY IS NOT BORNE OUT IN READING THE CLEAR LANGUAGE OF THE OPRA STATUTE. THIS
COURT AS ITS BEEN POINTED OUT CANNOT PRESUME TO WRITE THE LANGUAGE INTO A STATUTE MUCH
THAT IS THE PURVIEW AND PROVINCE OF THE LEGISLATURE AND CERTAINLY NOT ON A CONCEPT
THAT THE DEFINITION IS SOMEHOW ELASTIC R. NOW, I WANT TO TALK A LITTLE BIT ABOUT
CPA IN. J ITSELF BECAUSE THERE'S BEEN A LOT OF DISCUSSION AND CANDIDLY SOME QUESTIONS
ABOUT IT. AND MANY OF THOSE STATEMENTS HAD BEEN SOMEWHAT CONCLUSORY AND SELECTIVE AND
THE FACT THAT MANY OF THOSE QUESTIONS ARE OUT THERE I WOULD BRIEFLY POINT OUT THAT THIS IS
A REVIEW OF A MOTION TO DISMISS. IT ESSENTIALLY PROVES THE POINT THAT THERE WASN'T ENOUGH
EVIDENCE SUFFICIENT TO PROCEED PAST THE MOTION TO DISMISS STAGE EVEN IN THE LIGHT MOST
FAVORABLE TO THE PLAINTIFF. BUT BE IT THAT AS IT MAY I REALIZE WHAT WE'RE REVIEWING TODAY
WHICH IS WHETHER CPANJ FALLS IN THE DEFINITION OF OPRA, OF A PUBLIC AGENCY. NOW IT'S IMPORTANT
TO NOTE THAT IT'S A NONPROFIT VOLUNTEER ORGANIZATION THAT WAS CREATE IN 1982 AND IT
WAS CONSISTS OF 21 VOLUNTEERS WHO HAPPEN TO BE PUBLIC OFFICIALS R CPANJ DOESN'T COMPENSATE
ANY OF TSDZ MEMBERS, IS IT DOESN'T HAVE ANY EMPLOYEES OR STAFF. IT DOESN'T HAVE AN OFFICE
OR PHYSICAL LOCATION AND IT'S ORGANIZED AS A PROFESSION ALG ORGANIZE UNDER 501 C.
IMPORTANTLY, CPANJ MEMBER SHICH IS VOLUNTEER, NOT MANDATORY. IT'S NOT ESTABLISHED BY THE
ATTORNEY GENERAL OR THE GOVERNOR. IT'S UP TO THE INDIVIDUAL MEMBER WHO HAPPENS TO BE A
PUBLIC AG ACTOR. HE OR SHI CAN DECIDE IF THEY WANT TO AFFILIATE OR IF THEY DON'T. WHETHER
THEY TAKE AN OATH TO BECOME A PROSECUTOR THEY DON'T TAKE A SEPARATE OATH OR A COMBINED
OATH THAT SAYS OH, BY THE WAY, YOU'RE JOINING CPANJ AND THE SAME CAN BE SAID FOR ALL THE
OTHER PARTICIPATION AND BASE SEEKS THAT PROSECUTORS DO WHICH ARE INNUMERABLE THE 200
CLUB. CHIEF JUSTICE STUART RABNER: HAS ANY COUNTY PROSECUTOR DECLINED TO JOIN
CPANJ FROM ITS INCEPTION. MR. GRAMICCIONI: I DON'T KNOW THE ANSWER TO THAT
YOUR HONOR BUT I THINK ALL OF THEM HAVE SKWLOIND BUT IT IS DISCRETIONARY. CHIEF
JUSTICE STUART RABNER: YOU TOLD US YOU WERE GOING TO TOUCH ON RESOURCE DZ. WHERE DOES
CPANJ'S, WHERE DO IT'S RESOURCES COME FROM? GENERALLY SPEAKING. MR.
GRAMICCIONI: IT COMES FROM, WELL THE RECORD IS SOMEWHAT DEVOID OF THAT IN THE LOWER COURTS
WHICH IS OBVIOUSLY PART OF OUR ARGUMENT THAT THEY HAVEN'T MET THEIR BURDEN TO PROCEED
BUT THE FUNDING COMES FROM COUNT. COUNT RESOURCES. THE COURT: ALL
GOVERNMENT RESOURCES, NO PRIVATE RESOURCES. MR. GRAMICCIONI: YES, SIR.
JUSTICE PIERRE-LOUIS: AND I THINK MS. THOMPSON MENTIONEDED THAT ALL THE DUES, I GUESS
ALL THE MEMBERS ARE DUES PAYING MEMBERS AND ALL OF THOSE DUES ARE PAID FOR BY WHAT ENTITY?
MR. GRAMICCIONI: THE THE CPA N.J. PAYS, OH, I'M SORRY, IT COMES FROM EACH
GOVERNMENT AGENCY, PROSECUTOR'S OFFICE. JUSTICE PIERRE-LOUIS: SO EACH COUNTY
PROSECUTOR'S OFFICE OFFICE PAYS FOR EACH COUNTY PROSECUTOR TO BE A MEMBER OF C P.A. N
JUDGMENT. MR. GRAMICCIONI: AND THOSE FUNDS ARE USED, IT'S STATED PURPOSES
AND GOALS IN THE BYLAWS TO MAINTAIN COOPERATION AMONGST O A D AND, BUT IMPORTANT RELATIVELY
TO DEVELOPING EDUCATIONAL PROGRAMS SO AS TO PROMOTE THE ORDERLY SNOOVM WHY ARE
PROSECUTORS SUBJECT TO OPRA? WHAT IS THE SECTION OF SECTION 1.1 THIS WHICH THE AN INDIVIDUAL
PROSECUTOR'S OFFICE FALLS {QUESTION MARK}. MR. GRAMICCIONI: YOUR HONOR, I WAS
GRAPPLING WITH THAT AS YOU WERE ASKING THOSE QUESTIONS. I WOULD THINK, AND I WILL BE HAPPY
TO PROVIDE SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEFING IF THE COURT WISHES BUT I WOULD THINK IT FITS MOSTLY
UNDER THE POLITICAL SUBDIVISION, AN OFFICE OF POLITICAL SUBDIVISION WHICH IS A COUNTY,
A POLITICAL SUBDIVISION BEING A COUNTY CONSIDERING. JUSTICE WAINER-APTER:
ISN'T THE ONLY THING THAT SAYS ABOUT IT IN THE CONSTITUTION IS IT'S APPOINTED WITH THE
GOVERNOR AND WITH THE THE ADVICE AND CONSENT FOR BY THE SENATE FOR A 5-YEAR TERM AND THERE'S
A BUNCH OF -- SO WHY WOULD IT BE A POLITICAL -- AN OFFICE OF A COUNTY IF WITHIN THE SCONCE
TUGS IT'S DESCRIBED AS, YOU KNOW, A CONNECTION TO THE GOVERNOR? MR. GRAMICCIONI:
THAT'S A FAIR QUESTION AND THIS IS WHY I'M WILLING TO PROVIDE SUBLGMENTAL BRIEFING AS
FWHESZ BECAUSE I CAN SEE THAT ARGUMENT AS WELL BUT THAT SAID IT'S BROKEN OUT IN THE
CONSTITUTION, THERE'S A PROVISION FOR THE ATTORNEY GENERAL BUT THERE'S ALSO PROVISIONS
THAT EACH COUNTY HAVE HAVE A PROSECUTOR AS YOU POINTED OUT. I THINK ITS ALSO
IMPORTANT CPANJ THERE'S BEEN ARGUMENTS THAT THEY ARE 1 IN THE SAME FROM THE PROSECUTORS.
JUSTICE PATTERSON: : I'M SORRY, CAN WE STEP BACK TO THAT. MR.
GRAMICCIONI: OF COURSE. JUSTICE PATTERSON: : BECAUSE TO ME THAT'S A REALLY
IMPORTANT POINT BECAUSE ONCE WE CAN IDENTIFY WHAT THE COUNTY PROSECUTOR IS AND WHY DESPITE
I'M SURE THERE ARE MANY COUNTY PROSECUTORS WHO HAVE LOVED TO HAVE MADE THEIR ARGUMENT
ABOUT NOT BEING A PUBLIC AGENCY BUT IT'S NEVER BEEN MADE IN THE HISTORY OF LITIGATION
AS FAR AS WE CAN TELL SO YOU THINK MOST LIKELY IT IS AN OFFICE OF A POLITICAL SUBDIVISION
IN THE SORT OF THE SECOND PART OF THE STATUTE. MR. GRAMICCIONI: YOUR HONOR,
AGAIN RSHGS SINCE IT WASN'T REALLY COVERED ON THE BRIEFINGS BELOW, THAT WOULD BE MY POSITION
BUT I WOULD BE HAPPY TO. JUSTICE PATTERSON: : YES. MR.
GRAMICCIONI: NOW I ALSO NOTE THAT THERE'S A CRIMINAL INVESTIGATORY INVESTIGATION THAT
APPLIES TO RECORDS AT A COUNTY PROSECUTOR'S OFFICE SO IT WOULD SEEM TO MAKE SENSE THAT
IT WOULD BE CONSIDERED SOME KIND OF PUBLIC AGENCY. JUSTICE PATTERSON: :
THAT IS MORE EVIDENCE THAT THE. MR. GRAMICCIONI: BUT THE ARGUMENT ABOUT CPANJ
BEING 1 IN THE SAME AS COUNTY PROORS, IT'S IMPORTANT THAT CPANJ DOESN'T HAVE ANY
INVESTIGATORY OR PROSECUTORIAL POWERS. THEY CAN'T CONDUCT INVESTIGATIONS OR ARREST ANY
1. THEY CAN'T ISSUE SUBPOENAS. THEY CAN'T DO CUSTODIAL INTERVIEWS AND THEY CAN'T DOFULLY
OF THE FUNCTIONS THAT ARE RESERVED UNDER NEW JERSEY STATUTE 258. JUSTICE
WAINER-APTER: ARE YOU SAYING THEY CAN'T. JUSTICE WAINER-APTER: WHEN YOU SAY
THEY CAN'T, DO YOU MEAN THEY DON'T OR THEY ARE PROHIBIT BID STATUTE? WHO DECIDES WHAT
CPANJ DOESN'T ASIDE FROM THE 21 COUNTY PROSECUTORS WHO COME TOGETHER AND SIT IN A
ROOM AND SAY WE ARE NOW CPANJ? MR. GRAMICCIONI: THE STATUTE. I MEAN THEIR
POWERS. JUSTICE WAINER-APTER: WHICH STATUTE? MR. GRAMICCIONI:
158.5. THAT'S WHAT GIVES A COUNTY PROSECUTOR FOR THEIR. I MEAN THE COUNT PROSECUTOR MIGHT
VOLUNTEER TO BE ON LAL LEAGUE BOARD ON THEIR MUNICIPAL TOWN. IT DOESN'T MEAN THAT THEY
ALSO HOLD THOSE POWERS TO BE ABLE TO CARRY OUT THOSE FUNCTIONS. JUSTICE
WAINER-APTER: SO THEN WHY ARE COUNTY PROSECUTORS REPRESENTING CPANJ IN COURT SNIM.
MR. GRAMICCIONI: ON AMICUS? JUSTICE WAINER-APTER: I THINK, ON PREVIOUS CASES,
I THINK IT WAS 36. WHY ARE COUNT PROSECUTORS REPRESENTING CPANJ REPRESENTING THEM IN
COURT. MR. GRAMICCIONI: BECAUSE AMICUS, FOR EXAMPLE, A FRIEND OF COURT
CONCEPT WELCOMES OPINIONS FROM POTENTIALLY FROM ANYONE WHO MIGHT HAVE A STAKE, AN ASHABLE.
JUSTICE PIERRE-LOUIS: BUT IN THIS CASE, TD, THE INITIAL ATTORNEY OF RECORD
WAS AN ACHL P FROM MERCER COUNTY ASSIGNED TO THIS CASE BY THE MERCER COUNTY PROSECUTOR,
MEMBER OF CPANJ SO IT BAENTD A FRIEND IN THE COURT IN THE FRIEND OF THE COURT CONTEXT.
IT WAS IN THE CONTEXT OF REPRESENTING AN ENTITY, A PRIVATE ENTITY IN COURT IN A MATTER
THAT HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH THE USUAL DUTIES OF AN ASSISTANT PROSECUTOR IN THE THE
PROSECUTION AND INVESTIGATION OF CRIMINAL MATTERS IN THE STATE. MR. GRAMICCIONI:
YES BUT I WOULD SAY THEY ARE JUST LIKE EVERYONE, VOLUNTEERING TO SUPPORT ON AN ENDEAVOR.
JUSTICE WAINER-APTER: PROSECUTOR RRNTD ALLOWED TO DO THAT. THERE IS A SPECIFIC
STATUTE THAT SAYS THEY CAN ONLY REPRESENT THE. SO THEY COULD NOT REPRESENT THEIR FRIEND
IN A DIVORCE MATTER OF THE THERNGD NOT REPRESENT THEIR FRENTD FROM A CHILD CUSTODY MATTER.
THEY CANNOT REPRESENT THEIR CHILD ALITTLE LEAGUE TEAM IN A CIVIL MATTER. MR.
GRAMICCIONI: BUT THE PROSECUTOR'S CODE OF CONDUCT SAYS THEY CAN VOLUNTEER IN CHARITABLE
ORGANIZATIONS '. JUSTICE WAINER-APTER: WITHOUT PRACTICING LAW SO YOU'RE SAYING
FILING A BRIEF IN COURT AND HAVING YOUR SIGNATURE AT THE BOTTOM IS THE SAME AS COACHING
LITTLE LEAGUE AND IT'S NOT THE SAME AS PRACTICING LAW. MR. GRAMICCIONI: NO,
NO, OF COURSE I APPRECIATE YOUR HONOR'S POINT ABOUT PRACTICING LAW BUT IT'S NOR THE BENEFIT
OF THE COURT WHEN RITSZ CONSIDERING WHAT EVER LEGAL ISSUE IS BEFORE IT. SO.
JUSTICE WAINER-APTER: SO IF THE PROSECUTOR WANTED 1 OF THE ASSISTANT PROSECUTORS TO REPRESENT
THE ACLU WHEN THE ACLU WAS APPEARING BEFORE THE COURT AS A FRIEND OF THE COURT, SOMETIMES
THE ACLU-NJ WILL BE REPRESENTED BY A PRIVATE LAW FIRM. THE. I'M ASSIGNING YOU TO REP THE
ACLU-NJ IN COURT IN THIS FRIEND OF THE COURT, THE KRAFRJ IS ENTERING. THAT WOULD BE PERMITTED
{QUESTION MARK}. MR. GRAMICCIONI: I DON'T KNOW THAT TO BE THE CASE YOUR HONOR.^
OBVIOUSLY THERE IS AN INTEREST WITH PERFORMING A PROSECUTORIAL FUNCTION. A LOT OF LEGAL
ISSUE THAT CPA IN. J LENDS SUPPORT TO TO A POTENTIAL POLICY PERSPECTIVE IS DESIGNED FOR
THE COURT TO HAVE THE THE MOST INFORMED OPINION. NATURALLY L YOU'RE GOING TO GET YOUR
SUBJECT MATTER EXPERTS FROM PEOPLE WHO WORK IN A COUNTY PROSECUTOR'S OFFICE SO I CAN'T
IMAGINE THAT SCENARIO WHERE THEY WOULD BE DIRECTED TO VOLUNTEER FOR AN ACLU ISSUE.
JUSTICE SOLOMON: OTHER THAN THE ARGUMENT THAT THE POSITION THAT THE ACLU AND THE
POSITION OF THE COUNTY PROSECUTOR'S OFFICE ASSOCIATION, IN ANY GIVEN CASE WOULD BE AT
DREKD DIRECT ODDS, OTHER THAN THAT, IS THERE ANYTHING IN THE COUNT PROSECUTORS, LAWS,
THE CONSTITUTION, ANYTHING THAT WOULD PREVENT CPANJ FROM DECIDE TO GO ASK ITS PROSECUTORS
IF 1 OF THEM WOULD RIPTD AN INTEREST THAT WAS IN COMMON WITH THE ACLU. IS THERE ANYTHING
PREVENTING THEM FROM DOING THAT, C PCP A N.J. TAKING A POSITION THAT WAS KINTD WITH THE
ACLU'S. MR. GRAMICCIONI: I DON'T THINK SO YOUR HONOR. JUSTICE
SOLOMON: AND YOU MENTIONED A FACT THAT THE PROSECUTORS INVESTIGATING PROSECUTORS CASES,
I THINK WE DELVED INTO THIS A LITTLE BIT, DOES CPANJ MAKE ANY BINDING DECREESES, EA DIKTSDZ,
ISSUE ANY KIND OF, WELL, IT ISSUES GUIDE LYLES OR ORDERS ANY KIND OF CONDUCT BY THE INDIVIDUAL
PROSECUTORS? DOES IT HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO COMPEL PROSECUTORS TO DO ANYTHING? MR.
GRAMICCIONI: NO THEY ARE JUST ESSENTIALLY IT'S SHARING OF THOUGHTS FLT IT'S A GATHERING
OF THOUGHTS. THE ATTORNEY GENERAL CAN DO AT THAT BY DIRECTIVE OR GIEL OF. OF COURSE THE
LEGISLATURE CAN PASS LAWS THAT ARE CRIMINALLY BINDING AND THIS COURT CAN FORM IN THAT
REGARD BUT CPANJ DOES NOT HAVE THAT SNN. �� COUNSEL IS THERE ANY IN THE
ORGANIZATION. MR. GRAMICCIONI: NO. JUDGE DOUGLAS M. FASCIALE: DOES
IT PERFORM GOVERNMENT FUNCTIONS. MR. GRAMICCIONI: NO YOUR HONOR. THE GOVERNMENT
FUNCTION TEST IS THE CREATION TEST IS WHAT DICTATES BUT EVEN LOOKING AT THE GOVERNMENT
FUNCTION TEST, THAT'S PRE CEASELY MY ARGUMENT IS THEY ARE NOT DOING TRADITIONAL LAW
ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITIES. AS I MENTIONEDED IN THEIR BYLAWS, THEIR PURPOSE IS TO EDUCATE.
EVERYTHING IS RELATIVE TO EDUCATION. AND THAT'S OKAY TO EXIST. WHEN THE COUNT PROSECUTORS
LEAVE AND DECIDE TO JOIN THIS VOLUNTEER ORGANIZATION, WHEREVER THEY MIGHT MEET, AT
VAUSZ LOCATIONS THEY DON'T MAGICALLY TRANSFORM THEIR SWORN AUTHORITY THAT THEY HOLD
INDIVIDUALLY TO A SEPARATE ORGANIZATION. IT DOESN'T WORK THAT WAY. JUDGE
DOUGLAS M. FASCIALE: THE REASON WHY I ASK THAT QUESTION IS WHAT THEY SAY IS IT PROMOTES
THE ORDERLY ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE, FORM LATSZ CRIMINAL JUSTICE POLICY AND PRATSDZ
IN SERVICE TO THE PROSECUTOR'S LAW ENFORCEMENT POWER. THAT'S I THINK WHAT THEY SAY THAT
CP A N.J. -- TO DEFINE WHEN WE ANSWER THE QUESTION OF WHETHER IT'S A PUBLIC AGENCY.
MR. GRAMICCIONI: I THINK CPANJ IS REMOTELY DOESN'T PERFORM ANY GOVERNMENT
FUNCTION WHICH IS EASILY DISTINGUISHABLE WITH CASES LIKE LEAGUE OF MUNICIPALITIES. FOR
EXAMPLE, THE ATTORNEY GENERAL, THERE'S NO OPINION THAT THEY ARE A PUBLIC AGENCY LIKE YOU
HAD IN LEAGUE OF MUNICIPALITIES OR THE FIRE DISTRICT CASE. JUSTICE
WAINER-APTER: DID YOU SAY THE ATTORNEY GENERAL IS NOT A PUBLIC AGENCY. MR.
GRAMICCIONI: NO, I SAID THE ATTORNEY GENERAL AND SOME OF THE PRECEDENT THIS COURT HAS
ISSUED, THE ATTORNEY GENERAL'S SHALLED OPINIONS SAYING THIS IS A PUBLIC AGENCY. FOR EXAMPLE,
LEAGUE OF MUNICIPALITY. THEY SAID THAT IS A PUBLIC AGENT SICHLT IT'S 1 OF THE MANY FACTS
THAT ARE EASELY DISTINGUISHABLE IN RECREW CPANJ. ANOTHER 1 IS THE FRANK LINE FIRE DISTRICT
CASE. IN THAT CASE, THE ATTORNEY GENERAL ISSUED AN OPINION WHERE HE IS SAYING IT'S A
PUBLIC AGENCY,. A SPCA THEY CONCEDED THEY WERE A PUBLIC AGENT AND I THEY BY THE WAY, PERFORMED
ARTRADITIONAL LAW OFFICER FUNCTION. I MEAN THEY ARE OUT THERE EN INFORMATIONING ANIMAL
CRUELTY LAWS. IT'S EASY TO DISTINGUISH. JUSTICE PATTERSON: : HOW DO YOU
DISTINGUISH SUSSEX MONDAYS. MR. GRAMICCIONI: THANK YOU YOUR HONOR R SUSSEX
SKOUNTSZ IS OBVIOUSLY A SITUATION WHERE THE LEGAL LYNN IN THIS CASE WAS FOUND TO BE PART
OF THE PUBLIC AGENCY WAS THE SCHOOL. IN THAT CASE TSHGS I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT THAT THE
COURT HELD THAT THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE THAT THE LETSCH I SAY LAY TOUR INTENDED TO APPLY
OPRA TO CLINICS LIKE THAT AND THEY CITED TO THE PLAIN LANGUAGE. IF IF IT'S AK AMBIGUOUS
YOU CAN LOOK ACCIDENT TRINSZ SICKLY BUT IN THIS CASE, I WOULD SUBMIT IT'S UNAMBIGUOUS.
I ALSO THINK IT'S IMPORTANT THAT THEY NOTED THAT A BROADER APPLICATION BEYOND AT STATUTORY
MANDATE COULD OPEN THE DOOR TO A VEX SAY SHUSZ OPRA REQUEST IN THE FUTURE WHICH IS OBVIOUSLY
A BIG CONCERN OF MUNICIPALITIES AND OTHER PUBLIC AGENCIES. CHIEF JUSTICE STUART
RABNER: DOES CPA N DEVELOP PUBLIC POLICY ISSUES WITH RESPECT TO CRIMINAL JUSTICE MATTERS?
DOES CPANJ RSH POLICIES OR STATEMENTS ON. MR. GRAMICCIONI: NO, YOUR HONOR,
WE JUST PROVIDE OPINIONS TO THE ATTORNEY GENERAL AND THEN HE OR SHE WOULD ISSUE THAT.
I'M AWARE THAT IN THE PLEADINGS I GUESS THERE WAS A MATTER BACK IN 1985 AND THERE MIGHT
HAVE BEEN CITE IN OTHER DIVISIONS THAT THERE WERE JOINT EFFORTS, NOT TO MY KNOWLEDGE.
CHIEF JUSTICE STUART RABNER: CPANJ DOESN'T COME TOGETHER AND RECOMMEND POLICY
DIRECTION? MR. GRAMICCIONI: OH, I'M SORRY, I THOUGHT YOU MEANT FOR PURPOSES
OF THE STATE, LIKE BEING SOMEHOW BINDING ON THE STATE. NO, OF COURSE. IT'S A SHARING OF
THOUGHTS SO AMONG OTHER THINGS, THEY CONSIDER IMPACTS ON POTENTIAL BILLS THAT MIGHT BE
-- RELATING TO CRIMINAL JUSTICE, THAT MIGHT BE PENDING IN THE LEGISLATURE.
JUSTICE WAINER-APTER: SO WHEN ALL THE BRARS ARE MEETING TO DISCUSS THAT, FOR EXAMPLE,
ARE WE ALL GOING TO TAKE A STANCE ON THIS BILL, HOW DO THEY DECIDE IF THEY ARE THE COUNTY
PROSECUTORS OR CPANJ. THEY ARE ALL SITTING IN 1 ROOM? DO THEY PUT 1 HAT AND SAY NOW WE'RE
IN THE COUNTY PROSECUTORS? NOW WE'RE. MR. GRAMICCIONI: THEY ARE INDIVIDUALS
BUT IN TERMS OF CPANJ THEY HAVE THEIR OWN LIR HEAD. CORRESPOND DENSE IS ISSUED IN THAT
REGARD ON LETTERHEAD. JUSTICE WAINER-APTER: BUT THE LETTERHEAD INCLUDES
ALL THEIR NAMES, RYE, OR THE OFFICERS BUT THE OFFICERS ARE STILL THE COUNTY PROSECUTORS
GRAM YES, MA'AM, I DON'T KNOW WHOSE NAME IT INCLUDES BUT IT'S CPANJ. CHIEF
JUSTICE STUART RABNER: WHAT'S THE DIFFERENCE IN ALL 21 COUNTY PROSECUTORS AGREE ON A
PARTICULAR ISSUE? MR. GRAMICCIONI: ALL AGREE, I'M SORRY. CHIEF JUSTICE
STUART RABNER: ALL 21 GET TOGETHER IN A ROOM AND THEY DECIDE WE EXTREME MEANTLY OPPOSE
THIS BILL AND WE ARE IN LOCK STEP TOGETHER ON THAT. IS THERE A DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE
21 COUNTY PROPERS TAKING A POSITION AND CPANJ TAKING THE POSITION IN A CASE SUCH AS THAT.
MR. GRAMICCIONI: I WOULD THINK SO, YOUR HONOR, BECAUSE THEY ARE JUST INDIVIDUALS
AND THEY ARE ACTING IN AN INDEPENDENT CAPACITY. JUSTICE WAINER-APTER: HOW
ARE THEY ACTING IN AN INN PEND SPEND CAPACITY WHEN THE THE COUNTY AN OFFICE IS SAYING.
HARDER? I UNDERSTAND THAT YOU ACT AS YOU'RE IN INDEPENDENT CAPACITY WHEN YOU COACH YOUR
CHILD'S LITTLE LEAGUE TEAM BUT IF YOUR JOB IS A SKOUNTDZ PROSECUTOR AND YOU'RE EXPLAINING
80 LEGISLATURE SHOULD ENFORCE THE STATE'S CRIMINAL LAWS, THAT IS NOT YOU ACTING IN YOUR
INDIVIDUAL CAPACITY. THAT IS YOU ACTING AS A COUNTY PRAER. MR. GRAMICCIONI:
I RESPECTFULLY DISAGREE. IT'S THE COUNT PROSECUTOR ASSOCIATION OF NEW JERSEY IS
COMING UP WITH THAT OPINION, THE VOLUNTEER 501 C ORGANIZATION. �� FOR BENEFIT
OF EACH COUNTY THEY ARE BRINGING THAT BACK TO. MR. GRAMICCIONI: COULD THE
BENEFIT THE COUNTIES, OF COURSE, BUT IT'S TOLESS FOR THE EDUCATIONAL PURPOSES THAT ARE
SET FORTH IN THE BYLAWS THAT OVERALL BENEFIT TO THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE POLICY ACROSS THE
STATE. JUSTICE PATTERSON: : IF THE PROSECUTORS ASSOCIATION TAKES THE POSITION,
THEY'VE MET, THEY'VE DISCUSSED TSHGS THEY DEBATED IT. IS THERE ANYTHING STOPPING A COUNTY
PROSECUTOR FROM SAYING NO, I'M NOT DOING THAT OR SHOWING UP IN FRONT OF A LEGISLATIVE
COMMITTEE AND SAYING I DON'T DPREE WITH THAT. IS THERE ANYTHING STOPPING ANY INDIVIDUAL
PROSECUTOR FROM DOING THAT. MR. GRAMICCIONI: YES, YOUR HONOR, THINGS GO TO
VOTES. IF YOU DON'T WANT TO PARTICIPATE IN A POSITION SNOOVM. JUSTICE SOLOMON:
THEY ARE NOW GOING TO TESTIFY FOR A LEGISLATIVE COMMITTEE OR AN ESPOUSE SAL PROPERTY AS
A GROUP. THEY ARE GOING TO SEND OUT A LETTER AND SAY THIS IS WHAT THE THE MAJORITY OF
US THINK. IS THERE ANYTHING STOPPING 1 COUNTY PROSECUTOR, MIDDLESEX CAMDEN, BERGEN, THERE
SAYING I DON'T AGREE WITH THAT'S CORRECT I'M GOING THAT LEGISLATIVE COMMITTEE. I'M SAYING
I DON'T AGREE WITH THAT. CAN THEY STILL DO THAT. MR. GRAMICCIONI: YES, OF
COURSE. JUSTICE SOLOMON: CAN HE STILL SAY I UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU'RE SAYING
WE SHOULD DO. I DON'T AGREE WITH IT UNLESS THE AG GIVES ME A DIRECTIVE I'M NOT DOING IT.
MR. GRAMICCIONI: THAT'S RIGHT BECAUSE THESE ARE JUST OPINIONS. THESE ARE JUST
RECOMMENDATIONS SO THE ANSWER TO YOUR QUESTION YOUR HONOR, IS YES. THE ATTORNEY: Q
JUSTICE NORIEGA: STATUTORILY CPANJ HAS SAT AT THE TABLE IN CERTAIN STATE RUN
ORGANIZATIONS, RIGHT LIKE THE DEPARTMENT OF LAW AND PUBLIC SAFETY POLICE TRAINING COMMISSION,
IS THAT CORRECT. MR. GRAMICCIONI: YES, SIR. JUSTICE NORIEGA: AND
ALSO THE POLE ADVICERY BOARD. MR. GRAMICCIONI: THAT'S CORRECT YOUR HONOR.
JUSTICE NORIEGA: SO STATUTORILY THEY ARE BROUGHT INTO THOSE MEETING. WHICH
OTHER PRIVATE ACT TORSZ. MR. GRAMICCIONI: I WOULDN'T KNOW OFF THE TOP OF
MY HEAD BUT I'M AWARE THERE'S ON THOSE COMMITMENT TISZ IT'S A MIX OF OF PUBLIC AND PRIVATE
OFFICIALS JUST FOR, IN TERMS OF REPRESENTATION. LIKE ON THE CRIMINAL PRACTICE COMMITTEE,
FOR EXAMPLE, LIKE P TC I THINK PERHAPS NOBLE MAYBE HAS MEMBERSHIP. BUT I AM JUST GOING
OFF MY BEST MEMORY, YOUR HONOR, SO I DON'T WANT TO MISLEAD YOU AT ALL. JUSTICE
FASCIALE: I JUST HAVE 1 QUICK QUESTION FOR CLARIFICATION. I UNDERSTAND AS TO VER RAI,
ROLL UNTIER FIRE DEPARTMENT WAS AN INSTRUMENT AN OF AN INSTRUMENTALITY OF A POLITICAL
SUBDIVISION BUT YOU SAID AT BEST IS AN INSTRUMENTALITY OF OFFICERS. CAN YOU CLARIFY
WHEN YOU MEANT BY THAT. MR. GRAMICCIONI: WELL THE APPELLATE DIVISION
KIND OF CONCLUDE THAT HAD A COUNT PROSECUTOR OR A CPANJ MIGHT FIT 1 WAY OR ANOTHER BUT
EITHER WAY THEY LAND ON THE FACT THAT IT WAS AN INSTRUMENTALITY. PART OF THIS COURT'S
DISCUSSION IS PART OF THE PRINCIPLE DEPARTMENT OF EXECUTIVE BRANCH, THE COUNT PROEFS OR
IS IT A POLITICAL SUBDIVISION WHICH IN THIS CASE WOULD BE A COUNTY. I FEEL LIKE YOUR HONOR
IT DOESN'T MATTER EITHER WAY BECAUSE IT'S STILL 3 DEGREES OF KEVIN BACON. IT'S LIKE
INSTRUMENTALITY OF AN INSTRUMENTALITY OF A POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OR OF AN OFFICE, OF A
STATE AGENT SICHLT IT'S IMPORTANT TO NOTE ALSO, I THINK THIS WAS FORMED, CPANJ WAS DPORMD
IN 1982. THE OPEN PUBLIC RECORDS ACT CAME OUT IN 2002. IT'S NOT AS IF THE THE LEGISLATURE
DIDN'T KNOW THAT CPANJ WAS OUT THERE. IF THEY INTENDED TO WRITE VOLUNTEER ORGANIZATIONS
THAT HAPPEN TO BE MADE UP OF PUBLIC OFFICIALS INTO THE THE LAW, THE THE INTENTIONALLY
BROAD LAW THEY WOULD HAVE DONE IT. JUSTICE PATTERSON: : AND THEY CAN DO IT
NEXT WEEK. MR. GRAMICCIONI: YES, YOUR HONOR, THAT'S EXACTLY RIGHT. THAT'S
KIND OF MY ARGUMENT. WITH DUE RESPECT TO THIS COURT'S THOFRT, IT'S PAST PRESS IS WHEN
A PAST PRESIDENT UNAMBIGUOUS, YOU DO NO FURTHER. IF A STATUTE IS YOU CAN LOOK AT THINGS,
LIKE PURPOSE, FORM STRUCTURE. I THINK CPANJ IS A PRIVATE ENTITY NOT SUBJECT TO OPRA ON
BOTH FRONT. CHIEF JUSTICE STUART RABNER: IF CPA N J ISSUES A MEMO A MEMO AND
THE MEMBERS KEEP IT ON FILE OR GIVE IT TO FELLOW ASSIST SIS TANS IN THE OFFICE, SUBJECT
TO OPRA. MR. GRAMICCIONI: IF THEY ARE HELD AT A COUNT PROSECUTOR'S OFFICE?
WELL I MEAN THIS WOULD HAVE TO BE A DETERMINES THAT THAT WAS UNDERTAKEN IN THE
OFFICIAL COURSE OF THEIR DUTIES, WOULD BE THAT WHEN YOU'RE PARTICIPATING IN THESE THIS
VOLUNTEER ORGANIZATION, THIS CPA IN. J THOSE RECORDS MIGHT NOT BE IN ORDINARY COURSE OF
PERFORMING YOUR OFFICIAL DUTIES AND RESPONSIBLE IS BLTSDZ. JUSTICE WAINER-APTER:
SO AGAIN I JUST COME BACK TO THIS STATUTORY PROHIBITION THAT FORBIDS ASSISTANT
PROSECUTORS FROM PROVIDING ANY OUTSIDE LEGAL SERVICES SO HOW DO WE GET AROUND THAT HERE
AGAIN. MR. GRAMICCIONI: YOUR HONOR, I CAN'T TELL YOU HOW TO NECESSARILY GET
AROUND IT. I THINK THE THE INTENT IS TO VOLUNTEER IN SUPPORT OF ACHARITIABLE ORGANIZATION
BUT I WOULD SAY WE'RE NOT HERE ON AN ETHIC ISSUE. FRAMING THIS FROM THE BEGINNING THIS WAS
A MOTION TO DISMISS FROM PROPERLY TO STATE A CLAIM WITH ALL FAVORABLE INFERENCES TO THE
MANUFACTURE. THEY PUT UP SOME BASE CLEGSLESS AND CONCLUSORY ALLEGATION AND IT DOESN'T
CUT THE MUSTARD SO JUST ENCOURAGE THE COURT TO AFFIRM THE LOWER COURT'S PERMISSION. I DON'T
NECESSARILY KNOW ANYTHING PARTICULAR L GETS AROUND IT. I DON'T THINK, I'M NOT CONFIDENT
THAT ANYTHING PROBTSZ IT EITHER BECAUSE AS I SAID, THE PROSECUTOR'S CODE OF ETHIC ACTUALLY
EXPRESSLY PERMITS PARTICIPATION VOLUNTEER AGENCY SUCH AS THIS. CHIEF JUSTICE STUART
RABNER: COME BACK TO THE DEFINITION OF GOVERNMENT RECORDS. WITH RESPECT CORRECT TO THE
COUNT PROSECUTOR'S OFFICE ITSELF, THEY DON'T HAVE TO MAKE A DOCUMENT BUT IF THEY RECEIVE
A DOCUMENT IN THE COURSE OF THEIR DUTIES AND KEEP IT ON FILE, THAT'S SUBJECT TO OPRA.
IS YOUR POSITION THAT WHEN THEY ARE RECEIVING A MEMO WITH RESPECT TO A CRIMINAL JUSTICE
POLICY THAT THEY ENDORSE, THEY ARE DOING THAT WITH A CPANJ HAT ON AND THE COUNT
PROSECUTOR'S OFFICE. THEY HAVE IT IN THEIR OFFICE, THE OFFICE OF THE COUNT PROSECUTOR BECAUSE
WE KNOW THEY HAVE NO PHYSICAL SPACE R. MR. GRAMICCIONI: YES, YOUR HONOR.
THE COURT: THE COUNT PROSECUTOR SITTING AT HIS OR HER DESK, FILES IT, KEEPS
IT, RECEIVED, NOT SUBJECT TO OPRA. MR. GRAMICCIONI: I CAN'T IMAGINE AN ARGUMENT
AROUND THAT THAT I CAN OFFER HERE. I WOULD ONLY COUNTER WITH THE FACT THAT A COUNT
PROSECUTORS I'M SURE MIGHT MAINTAIN DIFFERENT RECORDS FROM DIFFERENT AREAS IN THEIR LIFE
AT THEIR PHYSICAL OFFICE AND IT COULD COME FROM VERY DIFFERENT WALKS OF THEIR LIFE OUTSIDE
OF BEING THE COUNTY PROSECUTOR. IT DOESN'T MEAN THAT THOSE RECORDS ARE CONVERT TODAY
GOVERNMENT RECORDS. THE COURT:^ NO BUT ST ISN'T THIS QUITE DIFFERENT THAN GETTING
THE MINTDZ OF THE LITTLE LEAGUE MEETING. MR. GRAMICCIONI: IT IS YOUR HONOR,
ADMITTEDLY IT IS. BUT I WOULD ONLY JUST RESPECTLY TOLL THE KOVRTD WHOSE GOT A JOB WHOSE A
PUBLIC ACTOR. TAKES THAT POSITION. THEY ARE ALLOWED TO PARTICIPATE IN CHARTITIABLE
ORGANIZATIONS AND SETTING ALL THAT ASIDE. JUSTICE PATTERSON: : BUT THIS IS
AN ORGANIZATION THE SECOND THEY ARE NO LONGER -- THIS IS AN ORGANIZATION THAT THEY ARE
OUT OF THE SECOND THEY ARE NO LONGER COUNT PROSECUTOR. MR. GRAMICCIONI: YES
ARE IT IS. IT IS 1 OF THOSE. JUSTICE PATTERSON: : STARTS AND ENDS WITH THEIR
TERM AS COUNTY PROSECUTOR. MR. GRAMICCIONI: THEY ARE BUT THEY MAINTAIN THE
DISCRETION AND DECIDE IF THEY PARTICIPATE. IT'S NOT DIRECTED BY ANY GOVERNMENT AGENCY.
TLDZ NO PUBLIC EMPLOYEES LIKE IN LEAGUE OF MUNICIPALITIES THAT ARE GETTING A SALARY AND
ELIGIBLE FOR PERCENT. PE R S VTD IT'S WHOLLY DISHABLE FROM THIS COURT'S EARLIER DECISIONS.
CHIEF JUSTICE STUART RABNER: WHEN ATTORNEY GENERAL SITS WITH A GROUP OF TWUB
COUNT PROSECUTORS ON A MONTHLY OR BY MONTHLY BASIS, IS THE GENERAL MEETING WITH THE COUNTY
PROSECUTOR'S OFFICE ASSOCIATION OR WITH FWUN PROSECUTORS. MR. GRAMICCIONI:
THOSE MEET,, I KNOW THE COURT HAD ASKED THAT EARLIER, THOSE MEETINGS ARE CALLED THE COUNT
PROSECUTOR ASSOCIATION FOR PURPOSES OF THE CONVENIENCE, MEMBERS OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
STAFF WILL OFTEN JOIN BUT THEY'LL COME AND THEN THEY'LL GO AND THEN WE'LL HOLD OUR MEET
NOT GUILTY THIS BUILDING JUST 2 FORMS BELOW, I USED TO HOLD THE MEETING 2 FLOORS BELOW
BUT IT IS A CPANJ MEETING. IT IS NOT CALLED BY THE ATTORNEY GENERAL. AND I THINK THAT'S
AN IMPORTANT DISTINGUISHING FASHLTH. FACT THAT IT HAPPENS IN TRENTON IT'S IN THE CENTRAL
PART OF THE STATE AND IT SEEMS TO BE A CONVENIENT FORUM. CHIEF JUSTICE STUART
RABNER: I ASKED THIS TO FOLLOW UP ON THE NOTION THAT THEY ARE 1 IN THE SAME AND THEY ARE
SEEMLESS.^ IF CPANJ SAYS TO THE ATTORNEY GENERAL WE WOULD LIKE TO HAVE A MEETING NEXT
WEEK. THAT'S A CPANJ MEETING BUT IF THE THE ATTORNEY GENERAL SAYS I WOULD LIKE TO MEET
WITH THE 21 COUNTY PROSECUTORS THAT'S NOT. MR. GRAMICCIONI: NO, AND THAT'S
HAPPENED ON OCCASION WHEN THE ATTORNEY GENERAL HAS ISSUED DIRECTIVES OR GUIDELINES WHETHER
IT'S TELEPHONIC. SPECIFICALLY, THE ATTORNEY GENERAL TYPICALLY DECIDE TO HOLD THOSE
MEETINGS AT A CONVENIENT TIME AND PLACE WHEN HE KNOWS EVERYONE WILL BE ASSEMBLED BUT IT IS
NOT A MEETING CALLED BY THE ATTORNEY GENERAL. THERE HAS BEEN SEVERAL INSTANCES WHERE.
JUSTICE WAINER-APTER: BUT YOU'RE SAYING IT ALWAYS HAPPENS AT CPANJ MEETING.
MR. GRAMICCIONI: NOT ALWAYS. THE ATTORNEY GENERAL WILL ASK THEIR COUNT TO
GET ON THE PHONE TO DISCUSS A MATTER. THAT'S HAPPENED ON A NUMBER OEF KAGSZS.
CHIEF JUSTICE STUART RABNER: ON A SUBSTANTIVE LEVEL. MR. GRAMICCIONI: YES, SIR.
CHIEF JUSTICE STUART RABNER: HOW ARE THESE MEETINGS DIFFERENT FROM THE PER
SPECTIVE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL, THE COUNT PROSECUTOR AND CPANJ? DOES IT TURN ON WHO
INITIATES THEM? MR. GRAMICCIONI: I THINK SO. CPANJ IS CALLING THESE MEETINGS
FOR PURPOSES OF SHARING THE IDEA INTSZ THEY ARE DISCUSSING MORE THAN JUST POTENTIAL LE
GISLATIVE. CHIEF JUSTICE STUART RABNER: BUT IF ATTORNEY GENERAL CALLS THE MEETING
AND THERE'S A SHARING OF IDEAS, NODS THAT'S NOT A CPANJ MEETING. MR. GRAMICCIONI:
OFTEN TIMES WHEN THE ATTORNEY GENERAL WOULD CALL THE MEETINGS IT WAS FOR A DIRECTED PURPOSE,
AN INDIVIDUAL PURPOSE ABOUT HEY I'M GOING TO ISSUE THIS GUIDELINE AND I'D LIKE YOUR INPUT
OR WE HAVE THIS PARTICULAR MATTER THAT'S ONGOING AND THIS IS HOW I WOULD LIKE TO ADDRESS
IT. IT'S USUALLY FOR A MORE POINTED INDIVIDUAL REASON NOT JUST FOR PURPOSES OF -- IT'S
CPANJ MEETINGS ARE DISCUSSED IN EVERYTHING FROM SCHOLARSHIP PROGRAMS TO TRAINING TO
EDUCATIONAL OPPORTUNITIES. JUSTICE PIERRE-LOUIS: SO DO YOU AGREE WITH MS.
GRIFFIN THAT IN INSTANCES WHEN CPANJ IS COMMUNICATING WITH THE A J'S OFFICE AND
PROVIDING INFORMATION OR THEIR POSITION WITH REGARD TO POLICY INITIATIVES OR LEGISLATION
THAT THAT'S ALL INFORMATION THAT RSZ THAT CAN BE PUBLIC INFORMATION THAT CAN BE OBTAINED
FROM THE ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OFFICE BECAUSE THAT'S A COMMUNICATION WITH A PRIVATE ENTITY
AND NOT A COMMUNICATION THAT WOULD BE PRIVILEGED BETWEEN THE AG'S OFFICE AND AN INDIVIDUAL
PROSECUTOR'S OFFICE? MR. GRAMICCIONI: WELL, THAT WOULD OBVIOUSLY BE, IF AN
OPRA REQUEST WAS SENT TO THE ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OFFICE, THEY ARE A PUBLIC AGENCY, THEY
WOULD HAVE TO SORT THAT OUT, WHETHER AN EXCEPTION WOULD APPLY ON THEIR OWN BUT IF THE
THE SUBPOENA, I'M SORRY, THE OPRA RECIPIENT IS A PRIVATE ORGANIZATION LIKE CPANJ, THEY ARE
NOT JUST A PUBLIC AGENCY UNDER THE STATUTE SO THAT'S OBVIOUSLY YOU'RE ARGUMENT TODAY.
JUSTICE PIERRE-LOUIS: IS IT USUALLY THE CASE THAT IF A PRIVATE ENTITY IS
COMMUNICATING WITH A PUBLIC ENTITY THAT INFORMATION WOULD BE ABT TO BE OBTAINED FROM
THE PUBLIC ENTITY THROUGH OPRA. MR. GRAMICCIONI: YES, YOUR HONOR, I WOULD
THINK SO, SUBJECT TO ANY EXEMPTIONS THAT THE PUBLIC AGENCY SOUGHT TO APPLY.
JUSTICE PIERRE-LOUIS: BUT AGAIN IF CPANJ IS A PRIVATE ENTITY AS YOU'RE ARGUING, CPANJ
IS A PRIVATE ENTITY, NOT OPERATING AS A PUBLIC ENTITY, THERE LIKELY WOULDN'T BE AN EXEMPTION
TO NOTE ALLOW THAT INFORMATION TO BE OBTAINED VIA OPRA AND THE EXCUSE COULDN'T BE WELL,
THIS WAS A COMMUNICATION BETWEEN THE 21 COUNTY PROSECUTORS BECAUSE THE COMMUNICATION WAS
BETWEEN THE ORGANIZATION AND NOT TO THE COUNTY PROSECUTOR. MR. GRAMICCIONI:
YES, YOUR HONOR, IT WOULD BE VERY DIFFICULT TO ASSERT LIKE A CRIMINAL INVESTIGATORY XEFRPS
WHEN YOU'RE ACTING AS A PRIVATE ENTITY WITHOUT THOSE LAW ENFORCEMENT FUNCTIONS, SO YES.
JUSTICE WAINER-APTER: AND IF THE THE ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OFFICE IS SEEKING TO
CONVENE THE MEETING, DOES IT JUST MATTER WHETHER THEY TYPE IN THE E-MAIL ADDRESS, CPA
NJ AND IT GOES TO ALL 21 COUNTY PROSECUTOR'S E-MAILS OR WHETHER THEY INDIVIDUALLY TYPE
IN ALL 21 COUNTY E-MAIL ADDRESS. HOW DO THEY SAY WE WOULD LIKE TO MEET WITH THE 21 COUNSEL
PROSECUTOR'S OFFICE OFFICE BUT WE WOULD LIKE TO CALL IT A NOT A CPANJ MEETING. WE DON'T
WANT CPANJ TO HAVE ANYTHING TO DO WITH THIS. MR. GRAMICCIONI: I DON'T KNOW
THE ANSWER TO THAT, I DON'T REMEMBER. WHEN THE ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OFFICE, AND THIS IS
OBVIOUSLY OUTSIDE THE RECORD BUT IN MY PRIOR FORMER EXPERIENCE WHEN THEY WANTED TO GET
TOGETHER WITH THE PROSECUTOR THEY SENT AN E-MAIL WE NEED TO HAVE A CONFERENCE CALL OR
WE NEED TO MEET HERE AT THIS DATE IN TIME. THERE WASN'T LIKE HEY, THEY DIDN'T MAKE A
DISTINCTION BETWEEN CPANJ BUT AGAIN CPANJ THAT THE ORGANIZATION PUTS TOGETHER AND HOLDS
MEETINGS IN VAUSZ LOCATIONS THROUGHOUT THE STATE BUT CANDIDLY OFTEN TIMES IN TRENTON WHICH
IS THE MIDDLE, CONVENIENT FORUM FOR EVERYONE. JUSTICE WAINER-APTER: SO BATESCALLY
IT'S NEVER A CPANJ MEETING UNLESS C P.A. N.J. SAYS THAT IT'S A CPANJ MEETING BUT IF THE
ATTORNEY GENERAL RS REACHING OUT TO SCHEDULE THE MEETING THEN IT'S NOT A CPANJ MEETING
R I'M SORRY. I JUST KEEP HAVING -- YOU ARE SAYING YOU OR BUT THEN IT SEEMS LIKE YOUR
ANSWER IT ON ALL THESE QUESTIONS IT IS THE SAME. THE 21 COUNTY PROSECUTOR'S OFFICE, WHEN
YOU CAN REFER TO ALL 21 OF THEM TOGETHER AS THE COUNT PROSECUTOR'S OFFICE OR YOU CAN REFER
TO ALL 21 OF THEM TOGETHER AS CPANJ. MR. GRAMICCIONI: EACH OF THOSE PROSECUTOR
DOESN'T MAKE UP CPANJ. THEY DON'T HAVE ANY AUTHORITY ONCE THEY LEAVE THEY'VE BORDERS.
THEY CAN'T PERFORM THEIR FUNCTIONS WHEN THEY GET TOGETHER AT C P.A. N.J. MEETINGS. IT'S
SW THE ATTORNEY GENERAL HIM OR HERSELF. JUSTICE WAINER-APTER: BUT AREN'T I
SUGGESTING THAT THEY ARE ENGAGED IN SOME TYPE OF YOU WILL TRARM ACTIVITIES THAT THEY ARE
AUTHORIZED TO DO. IT DOESN'T SEEM LIKE YOU WOULD WANT TO BE ARGUING THAT. MR.
GRAMICCIONI: SAY IT AGAIN. JUSTICE WAINER-APTER: IF YOU'RE SAYING THEY DON'T
HAVE ANY AUTHORITY TO DO WHAT THEY ARE DOING IN A CPA IN H J MEETING, THEN ISN'T THAT
PROBLEM FOR THEM THAT THEY ARE ENGAGING IN THIS ULTRA TIFR ACTIVITY THAT THEY DON'T HAVE
ANY AUTHORITY TO PERFORM. IT'S NOT THE SAME AS COACHING YOUR CHILD LITTLE LEAGUE'S GAME.
MR. GRAMICCIONI: I BRING THAT UP BECAUSE IT'S PROVE POSITIVE THAT HER NOT
PERFORMING A GOVERNMENT FUNCTION WHICH THE PRAPGS. JUSTICE NORIEGA: BUT THEY ARE
VERY MUCH PERFORMING A LEGAL FUNCTION. THERE'S NO QUESTION THAT THEY ARE B IT THAT THEY ARE
ENGAGED IN THE PRA PRACTICE OF LAW TO SOME DEGREE IN SO MUCH THEY ARE REPRESENTING A PARTY
BEFORE A COURT IN MANY OF THOSE CIRCUMSTANCES IN RESPONSE TO JUSTICE WEINER APP TER'S
QUESTIONS SHE'S GOING ASKING ABOUT HOW DO WE DISTINGUISH, WHEN YOU SAY THEY LEAVE THE
PROSECUTOR'S OFFICE BEHIND WHEN THEY GO TO THE CPANJ MEETINGS. HOW DO THEY DO THAT? JOOL
YOUR HONOR, THEY ARE TALKING ABOUT MATTERS OTHER THAN OFFICIAL BUSINESS. I MEAN THEY ARE
TALKING ABOUT THIKS THAT MIGHT VERY WELL RELATE TO CRIMINAL JUSTICE REFORM OF COURSE BUT
LESS LIKE I SAID, SCHOLARSHIP OPPORTUNITIES, EDUCATIONAL MATTERS, TRAINING, VERY DIFFERENT
TOPICS. CHIEF JUSTICE STUART RABNER: LET'S STAY WITH THAT IN TEMGS OF OPRA
ON THE ATTORNEY OFFICE. IF MOTHER AGAINST DRUNK DRIVING TAKES A POSITION ON A CRIMINAL
JUSTICE MATTER, WRITES A LETTER TO THE ATTORNEY GENERAL, IS THAT SUBJECT TO OPRA.
MR. GRAMICCIONI: TO THE ATTORNEY GENERAL, I WOULD THINK HE'S A PUBLIC OFFICIAL AT A PUBLIC
AUTH SI SO ABSENT ANY EXEMPTION WHICH I COULDN'T THINK OF 1 THAT THAT WOULD APPLY, WOULD
A PLY. THE COURT: IT'S A LETTER FROM THE PRIVATE ENTITY GOING TO THE ATTORNEY
GENERAL, RIGHT. MR. GRAMICCIONI: SO YES, SIR. CHIEF JUSTICE STUART
RABNER: SO IF CPANJ IS A PRIVATE AGENCY AND WRITES A LETTER ON THE SAME TOPIC, IS THAT
THE SAME. MR. GRAMICCIONI: NOT IF THEIR REQUEST IS TO THE DIRECTED TO THE
PUBLIC AGENCY THAT IS THE OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL BUT IF OPRA REQUEST IS SENT TO
A PRIVATE ENTITY LIKE CPANJ, THEY ARE NOT A PUBLIC AGENCY UNDER THE OPRA STATUTE.
CHIEF JUSTICE STUART RABNER: SO IF YOU ARE A PRIVATE ENTITY, BY LIKE A MYRIAD OF OTHER
ENTITIES AS COUNSEL ARGUED EARLIER, ARE YOUR MEMOS THAT GO TO THE ATTORNEY GENERAL SUBJECT
TO OPRA. MR. GRAMICCIONI: WHEN THEY ARRIVE AT THE ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OFFICE,
I THINK THEY WOULD BE SUBJECT TO OPRA WITH NO EXERTION THAT I COULD THINK OF, YOUR HONOR.
THE LAST THING THAT I WILL BRING UP YOUR HONOR IS I WOULD JUST YORNSZ, EXCUSE
ME, I WOULD JUST CONSIDER THE POTENTIAL CHILLING EFFECT FOR PUBLIC ACTORS WHO MIGHT WISH
TO PARTICIPATE IN VOLUNTEER ACTIVITIES. HOW MANY OTHER ORGANIZATIONS WITH PUBLIC ACTORS
AS MEMBERS MIGHT BE SWEPT UP IN THE REQUESTED OVERALL BROAD DEFINITION AND CHARACTERIZATION
UNDERSTAND OPRA? WE KNOW OF AT LEAST 2 THAT HAVE JOINED HERE THAT, THE MUNICIPAL -- THE
STATE CHIEFS ASSOCIATION, THE MUNICIPAL CLERKS ASSOCIATION BUT THERE ARE PLENTY OF OTHERS
AND THE IMPLICATIONS OF BROADENING THIS ALREADY BROAD STATUTE WITHOUT LEGISLATION I WOULD
IMAGINE WOULD AFFECT EASELY THOUTDZ OF PLY EASE. OF THE. THE LAST THING I WILL
SAY IS FM THE THE COURT REVIEWS THE APPELLATE DIVISION VISION DECISION IT AGAIN TAKES
YOU BACK TO THE CLEAR AND UNAMBIGUOUS LANGUAGE WHICH IS DOESN'T COVER INSTRUMENTAL OF
AN INSTRUMENTALITY OF A POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OR A SUB AGENCY OF AN EXECUTIVE BRANCH AND
NOR THESE REASONS, I WOULD RESPECTFULLY REQUEST ON BEHALF OF MY CLIENT THAT THE COURT
AFFIRM THE LOWER COURT DECISION. UNLESS THERE'S ANY FURTHER QUESTIONS I APPRECIATE IT.
THANK YOU. MR. PROL: GOOD AFTERNOON CHIEF JUSTICE, ASSOCIATE JUSTICES, MAY IT
PLEASE THE COURT, THE NUP CLERKS ASSOCIATION IS CONCERNED THAT A DECISION FROM THIS COURT
HOLDING THAT A PRIVATE NONGOVERNMENTAL ENTITY THAT'S NEITHER WITHIN NOR CREATE BID A PUBLIC
AGENCY IS SUBJECT TO OPRA AND THE COMMON LAW RIGHT OF ACCESS COULD HAVE SUBSTANTIAL
UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES FOR HUNDREDS OF VOLUNTARY AND SERVICE ORGANIZATIONS THROUGHOUT
THE STATE THAT TOUCH OR CONCERN OR INTERACT WITH GOVERNMENTAL ENTITIES. WE
COME TODAY TO ASK THIS COURT TO EMPLOY A JUDICIAL SCALPEL, TO NARROWLY TAILOR ITS DECISION
AND TO BE CLEAR WHILE WE TAKE A POSITION ON THE MERITS OF THIS ACTION, NO POSITION ON
THE MERITS OF THIS ACTION WE MUST EXPRESS OUR STRONG CONCERN, THE ACCIDENT PANSIVE LANGUAGE
EMPLOYED BY THE PLAINTIFF AND THE THE COURT'S BELOW, SPECIALLY ON THEIR PETITION FOR SERB
YOURRY. THIS IS PARTICULARLY SO WHERE THE SETTLED LAW AND PO TELLING LE SWEEPSZ UP NUMEROUS
PROFESSIONAL SOCIAL EDUCATIONAL ADVOCACY ORGANIZATIONS WHO ENGAGE IN ACTIVITIES THAT
PROVIDE SERVICE TO OR ASSIST AGENCIES INSTRUMENT ALTS AND SUBDIVISION IS WHOM THE LEGISLATURE
INTENDED TO APPLY OPRA. TO THAT POINT, THE THE MUNICIPAL CLERKS ASSOCIATION,
A 501 C 3 PROFIT A CONCERN BY HOLDING THE COURT WOULD ISSUE THAT FOR THE FIRST TIME IN THE
STATE'S PRO DEATH AL HISTORY COULD FIND THAT IS NOT WITHIN OUR OR CREATE BY A PUBLIC ENTITY
OR INSTRUMENTALITY OR SUBDIVISION THEREOF COULD BE HELD TO OPRA IN THE COMMON LAW
REQUIREMENTS. THIS HAS A POTENTIAL. I APPRECIATE THE ACKNOWLEDGMENTMENT TODAY
THAT THE CLERKS ARE DIFFERENT THAN THE COUNTY AT THIS PROSECUTORS ASSOCIATION BY COUNSEL.
THE MATTER BEFORE THE COURT, WHILE THE SUBJECT OF CONSIDERABLE LEGAL ANALYSIS, LENGTHY
BRIEFING AND LENGTHY DEBATE TODAY, IS A SIMPLE ISSUE OF STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION. THIS IS
NOT A GOVERNMENT FUNCTION TEST. AND I WOULD POINT TO THE WORDS OF JUSTICE LA VECCHIA IN THE
MAJORITY OPINION,, TO THE EXTENT OUR PRIOR DECISIONS HAVE DISCUSSED CREATION OR
GOVERNMENTAL FUNCTION TEFRTSDZ AND DID HE MARCH KATING THE BOUNDARIES OF WHAT INCIDENTAL
FIES AS A PUBLIC AGENCY, SUCH TESTS ARE ARE USEFUL ONLY IN SECHS THEY. 2. THIS
CASE CALLS FOR STRAIGHTFORWARD EXERCISES STATUTORY INTERPRETATION: AND EACH WORD IS GIVEN
ITS ORDINARY AND PLAIN AND COMMON SIGNIFICANCE AS THIS COURT HAS HELD PREVIOUSLY.
THE PARTIES INCLUDING THE MU NIGS PAL CLERKS HAVE BRIEFED THE OPEN PUBLIC REKTSDZ ACT
EXTENSIVELY AND THE KEY ELEMENT HERE IS THE LITTLE PRESCRIPTION THE ENTITY MUST BE WITHIN
OR CREATED BY A PUBLIC AGENCY. WE COME BEFORE THIS COURT TO SHARE OUR REENTD EXPERIENCE,
A REQUEST WE SOUGHT TO IMPOSE OPRA RECORDS RETENTION AND PRODUCTION REQUIREMENTS ON OUR
ASSOCIATION. IT IMPLICATES MANY OF THE LEGAL ISSUES RAISED TODAY AND PRESENTS GRAVE
CONCERNS FOR OUR OPERATIONS TO THE CLERKS AND MANY OTHER LIKE AND SIMILARLY SITUATED
ORGANIZATIONS. THE PROCEDURAL HISTORY OF THE MUNICIPAL CLERKS ASSOCIATION EXPERIENCE IS
QUITE SIMILAR TO THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THIS CASE. IN OUR ACTION, THE THE TRIAL COURT GRANTED
AN ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE AND ARAN IN CAMERA DOCUMENT REVIEW BRIEFING AND ORAL ARGUMENT,
DISMISSED THE ACTION WITH PREFRN, EMPLOYING AN ANALYSIS AND REASONING THAT IS INN.
I WILL SAY THAT THE JUDGE BELOW HINGED THE DECISION TO THE RESULT FROM THE APPELLATE
DIVISION IN THIS CASE, CAME A COUPLE OF WEEKS AFTER THAT DECISION. THE TRIAL
COURT'S REJECTION OF THE EFFORT TO FOIFTD OPRA GOVERNMENTAL RECORDS OBLIGATION ON THE
CLERK ASSOCIATION WAS GROUNDED IN A FACTUAL ANALYSIS CONSISTENT WITH PRESIDENTIAL CASE
LAW INCLUDING AND SPECIALLY FAIR SHARE HOUDHOUSING AND VERRY. KEY TO THAT
IS A 'EM PE 2'S TO CREATE OR ACT WHICH WE CONSIDER TO BE AN XISZ 10 SHALL ISSUE WHEN EVALUATING
WHETHER AN ORGANIZATION IS SUBJECT TO OPRA OR THE COMMON LAW. WE ATTACHED THE
JANUARY 6, 2023, TRANSCRIPT. IT'S A 21 PAGE ORAL ARGUMENT AND BENCH RULING AND WEIGH
WAIT FOR YOUR HONOR FOR THAT THOUGHT FULL SUCCINCT AND WELL REASONED DECISION THERE. MUCH
I PARTICULARLY POINT THE COURT TO PAFRPS 15 AND 16 OF THAT DECISION AS WELL AS 35 AND
36 WHERE THE TRIAL JUDGE. IN SHORT, THE COURT KRESHG THAT THE CLERK'S ASSOCIATION LIKE
NUMEROUS OTHER SMALL ENTITIES OPERATING IN 503 C SPACE ARE NOT INSTRUMENTS ALTD OF A PUBLIC
AGENCY, NOT A POLITICAL SUBDIVISION AND NOT WITHIN OR NOR WERE THEY CREATED BY A
COMBINATION OF POLITICAL SUBDIVISIONS. BECAUSE THE MUNICIPAL CLERKS IS NOT A PUBLIC AGENCY
DOES NOT TAKE ANY GOVERNMENT ACTION, THERE IS NO IMPETUS TO CREATE A DHEK ON IT WHICH
IS THE PUBLIC POLICY BACK GROUP. FOR THE GORE GOING REASONS, THE MUNICIPAL CLERK
ASSOCIATION OF NEW JERSEY RESFENTHFULLY REQUEST THAT THE COURT REQUIRE A CLEAR NATURALLY
TAILORED GUIDANCE ON THE APPLICABILITY OF OPRA AND THE COMMON LAW ACCESS OF GOVERNMENT
RECORDS CONSISTENT WITH THE STATUTORY LANGUAGE AND THE LEGISLATIVE INTENT OF THE WE ASK
THAT THE CRITERIA BE FIRMLY ESTABLISHED TO ADDRESS WITH FINALITY THE PERCEIVED
AMBIGUITIES THAT HAVE GIVEN RISE TO HUNDREDS OF LITIGATION IS THROUGHOUT THIS STATE ON
THESE ISSUES. THE COURT CONSIDERATION IS GREATFULLY APPRECIATED. THIS IS SUBMITTED
RESPECTFULLY. I'M AVAILABLE FOR ANY QUESTIONS. CHIEF JUSTICE STUART RABNER:
QUESTIONS ANYONE SNE THANK YOU, MR. PROL. MS. MS. THOMPSON, BRIEF REBUTTAL.
MS. THOMPSON: I WILL COOP IT VERY SHORT 30 SECONDS TO SPEAK SOLE TO THE
QUESTION OF GOVERNMENT FUNCTIONING AND EDUCATING GOVERNMENT LAWYERS ABOUT ENFORCING CRIMINAL
LAW IS A GOVERNMENT FUNCTION AND SO I JUST WANT TO POINT TO THE COURT TO PAGE 18 OF LIB
TEAR YANSZ BRIEF WHERE THEY LIST SEVERAL MEETINGS WHERE CPANJ MET WITH THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
TO ASSIST GUIDELINES FOR PROSECUTORS TO FOLLOW. THAT'S IT. UNLESS YOU HAVE ANY OTHER
QUESTIONS. THE COURT: THANK YOU. THANK TO ALL COUNSEL FOR THE HELPFUL ARGUMENTS.
WE'LL TAKE THE MATTER UNDER ADVISEMENT.