COMMONWEALTH OF
KENTUCKY
FRANKLIN CIRCUIT
COURT
DIVISION II
CIVIL ACTION
NO. 15-CI-0214
MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
Geoffrey M. Young PLAINTIFF
vs.
Steven L. Beshear, Jack Conway,
Alison Lundergan Grimes,
DEFENDANTS
Dan Logsdon, and Patrick Hughes
* * * * *
Comes the
Plaintiff, Geoffrey M. Young, pro se, and respectfully moves,
pursuant to CR 56, for summary judgment by the Court in his favor. No
Defendant has made a responsive pleading, so this Motion is permitted
by CR 56.01.
Factual
background
On 3/2/15, Plaintiff initiated
this civil lawsuit against the five above-named Defendants for
conspiracy to defraud Kentucky's Democratic voters, corruption,
cronyism, and intentional violation of KDP bylaws. Instead of filing
responsive pleadings, Defendants, by Counsel, filed two CR 12.02
motions to dismiss at the last possible minute on 3/24/15. They
noticed their Motions for hearing at the Court's regular Civil Motion
Hour on 4/27/15. The Democratic primary elections in Kentucky will be
held on 5/19/15.
Plaintiff filed his Answer to
Both Motions (and memoranda) to Dismiss on 4/1/15. Plaintiff filed a
motion for a speedy jury trial on 3/27/15 and noticed it for an oral
hearing at the Court's regular Motion Hour on Monday, 4/6/15. At that
hearing, only Plaintiff and the lawyer representing Defendant Grimes
showed up. Plaintiff made two additional motions at that time: (1)
that the Defendants' two Motions (and memoranda) to Dismiss be
decided immediately or as soon as possible; and (2) that the Court
order all the parties to participate in at least one mandatory
settlement conference pursuant to Local Rule 7.02. The Court declined
to rule on Defendants' Motions to Dismiss on that day, but
acknowledged that Kentucky's election laws require speedy action by
the courts. Plaintiff emphasized that the Court already had in its
possession all of the documents it needed to rule on the Motions to
Dismiss.
As of the date of this filing,
4/20/15, as far as Plaintiff is aware, the Court has not ruled on the
Motions (and memoranda) to Dismiss.
On 4/16/15, Plaintiff called the
Louisville office of the FBI and filed a formal, criminal complaint
against the five Defendants for willfully violating Kentucky's
primary election laws, including but not limited to KRS 118.105(1).
Erratum: Stan Lee (R), who was
one of Plaintiff's opponents for the 45th District of the Kentucky
House in 2012, did in fact have a Republican primary opponent earlier
that year. [Original Complaint at 7] This error has no effect on
Plaintiff's arguments in this case.
Arguments
A.
Through their attorneys, the five Defendants have openly declared
themselves to be above the law.
Plaintiff has cited instance
after instance where some or all of the Defendants have openly
flouted certain key KDP bylaws in order to accomplish obviously
illegitimate purposes. No Defendant has even attempted to deny any of
his accusations. Instead, Defendants resorted to the astonishing
argument that in the context of primaries, adherence or non-adherence
to the KDP Bylaws are "internal party matters,"
"immaterial," "political rather than judicial,"
"not justiciable," and in general, beyond the reach of any
intervention by any court. [Four Defendants' Memorandum, 3/24/15, at
6-9; Grimes Memorandum, 3/24/15, at 5-7]
All
five Defendants based their Memoranda crucially upon Rosenberg
v. Republican Party of Louisville and Jefferson County,
270 S.W.2d 171 (Ky. 1954), which held that Section 6 of the Kentucky
Constitution – "All elections shall be free and equal" –
applies only to general elections, not primaries [citing
Montgomery v. Chelf,
118 Ky. 766, 82 S.W. 388, (1904), which concluded, in a statement
that Plaintiff considers dicta,
that primary elections aren't really elections at all]. The Rosenberg
decision also stated, "Whether the Constitution and Bylaws of
the Jefferson County Republican Executive Committee prohibit such
action does not concern us."
In his Answer to Both Motions to
Dismiss, Plaintiff devoted the first six pages to reducing
Defendants' central legal argument to rubble and then grinding the
rubble into dust. [Answer, 4/1/15, 1-6] Defendants have, in effect,
claimed the legal right and power to rig any Democratic primary in
Kentucky at will. Plaintiff remains astounded at their sense of
impunity.
This
is how democracies die: one major institution at a time. Once
made up of a set of intricately interlocked, voluntary organizations,
each run in a more or less democratic manner according to sound rules
that are scrupulously followed, the society becomes balkanized into
collections of petty tyrannies all swept up and controlled by the
same national oligarchy or tyrant, all under the never-blinking eye
of the state security apparatus, all largely unreported or heavily
spun by the corporate media, and all suffused with an atmosphere of
unrelieved insecurity and terror for each atomized individual in it
who can't depend on the protection of one or another powerful
faction, oligarch, or gang. The Democratic Party is not a
neighborhood knitting club. If the Court allows the two politically
dominant parties to fully become tyrannies that enact merely the form
but not the substance of democracy, the leaching of the last
remaining measure of democracy from the Commonwealth as a whole
cannot be far behind.
B.
Better, more exciting, and much more democratic procedures can
readily be imagined.
Five responsible Democrats in the
Defendants' positions would have proceeded in a totally different way
between January 27, 2015 and the primary on 5/19/15.
(a) Seeing that the primary races
for Governor and certain other offices were contested, they would've
taken the idea of a "Unity Press Conference" off the table
or never considered it as a reasonable possibility in the first
place.
(b) The KDP would plan an
extensive series of campaign appearances where Plaintiff and Jack
Conway would have equal opportunities to present their ideas to the
same audience and debate with each other. The goal would be to help
as many of Kentucky's Democrats as possible form opinions about which
candidate would be more likely to be able to defeat the Republican
nominee and which would do a better job as the next Governor.
(c) The KDP would assist both
campaigns in dealing with corporate media, both Kentucky-based and beyond. No artificial limits would be imposed on the two candidates'
freedom of expression. If they wanted to spend 40% of their time
attacking each other and 40% of their time criticizing one or more of
the Republican candidates for Governor, that would be encouraged.
(d) The KDP would assist both
campaigns in complying with the myriad regulatory requirements that
must be met, so the decision between them would come down to the
choice of the voters on 5/19/15 rather than the violation of some
arcane regulation.
(e) Re fundraising, the KDP could
establish three separate Primary Funds within its treasury: one that
would be turned over to the Young-Masters Campaign as soon as
contributions came in, one that would be given to the Conway-Overly
Campaign, and one that would be given to the winner of the primary on
5/19/15. People could still contribute directly to the two campaigns
if they preferred to bypass the KDP, of course. In addition, the
State Executive Committee could decide to give equal amounts of KDP
funds and other resources to both primary campaigns, pursuant to
Article I.D. (..."No assets of the Democratic Party shall be
used in a Democratic Primary Election unless they are made available
equally to all Democrat Candidates in that specific primary
election...")
(f) Although neither the KDP nor
any county Democratic parties currently hold annual conventions (to
Plaintiff's knowledge), they could. Each convention could provide
equal opportunities for both candidates to interact with grass-roots
Democrats.
(g) Throughout the primary, the
overwhelming message conveyed by the KDP and all the county parties
would be, "May the best candidate win on May 19th and then win
again on November 3rd."
Or, the KDP could choose to
continue to decline.
C.
Voltaire wrote, "With great power comes great responsibility."
The five Defendants have abused their power shamelessly and have
shown no indication that they see any reason to change their
antidemocratic strategy.
Since the filing of the original
Complaint on 3/2/15, all five Defendants have continued and
intensified their criminal patterns of behavior without interruption.
The State Central Committee has failed and/or refused to schedule a
formal hearing on Plaintiff's written appeal, as required by Bylaw
IX.F. Jack Conway has refused to respond in any way to Plaintiff's
numerous challenges to debate him. He has avoided attending all panel
discussions to which the Plaintiff and/or other gubernatorial
candidates have been invited, including those sponsored by: the
Kentucky Press Association in Louisville on 1/23/15; Kentucky
Association of Realtors in Lexington on 2/3/15; the Forum for People
with Disabilities in Frankfort on 2/5/15; I Love Mountains Day on the
Capitol steps on 2/12/15; Christians at the Capitol on 2/20/15;
rallies for reproductive rights and voting rights in the Capitol
Rotunda on 4/26/15; Campbellsville University's Dialogue on Public
Issues TV show hosted by Dr. John Chowning, 3/9/15; Children's
Alliance board of directors in Frankfort on 3/10/15; Gatewood's
Legacy Radio Hour, any weekday, (3/13/15); Lexington's St. Patrick's
Day Parade on 3/14/15; Northern Kentucky Chapter of Kentuckians for
the Commonwealth on 3/17/15; Kentucky Association of Transportation
Engineers in Frankfort on 3/20/15; Kenton County Democratic Party
Executive Committee on 3/25/15; welcoming President Obama to
Louisville, Kentucky on 4/2/15; the American Family Association of
Kentucky's Candidates' Forum at Evangel Church in Louisville on
4/11/15; the live KET Gubernatorial debate in Lexington scheduled for
4/27/15; and any number of other possible events. Since December,
2014, Defendant Conway has consistently given the impression that he
is terrified to be seen in the same room or even county as Plaintiff.
While arguably he cannot legally be compelled to debate Plaintiff on
any particular issue on any particular day or in any particular
place, Defendant Conway's pattern of avoidant behavior is completely
consistent with that of a politician involved in a criminal
conspiracy to rig a primary election. The message being conveyed is
that the size of Conway's bank account should determine the outcome
of the primary, not the candidates' positions on the issues or
relative ability to beat the Republican nominee.
Defendants' attorneys were either
absent from the Court's Motion Hour on 4/6/15 or "unable"
to argue their own Motions and Memoranda to Dismiss, when Plaintiff
moved that the Motions be decided that day. Plaintiff was prepared to
dispose of both Motions and Memoranda orally if asked. Defendants
Grimes' contempt for the democratic and judicial process was evident
through the comments of her attorney; and the other four Defendants'
contempt for the Court was demonstrated by their Counsel's complete
absence from the courtroom. The Court would have been well within its
discretion and authority to have said something like: "I've read
all the documents that have been filed. Defendants' poorly-argued
Motions to Dismiss are hereby overruled. Plaintiff's Motion for a
speedy jury trial is hereby granted, with the trial set to begin on
April 28th. The parties' first mandatory settlement conference shall
start tomorrow afternoon, that is, on April 7th. Dilatory tactics by
defendants and their counsel will be viewed with great disfavor by
this Court. Your instructions are to minimize the number of
outstanding issues that the jury will be asked to decide. Next case."
Plaintiff was quite loath to file
a criminal complaint with the FBI on 4/16/15, but he has no plans to
withdraw it and doesn't even know if it would be legal for him to do
so (not being an attorney). He will remain available and willing to
assist the Federal Prosecutor(s) in developing a criminal case and
testifying at trial if his help is requested.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully
asks the Court to affirm all five Defendants' civil liability for
conspiracy to defraud Kentucky's Democratic voters, corruption,
cronyism, and intentional violation of certain critically important
KDP bylaws. Plaintiff respectfully asks the Court to grant all of the
claims for relief listed in Paragraphs 41 and 42 of his original
Complaint. Plaintiff suggests that monetary damages totaling $16
million from the five Defendants would constitute an effective
deterrent to any efforts by their successors in the KDP to fix
primary elections in the future.
NOTICE
This
Motion for Summary Judgment shall come before the Court for hearing
on Monday, May 4, 2015, at 9:00 a.m. or as soon thereafter as
Plaintiff and Counsel may be heard.
Respectfully
submitted,
Geoffrey M. Young,
Plaintiff, pro se
454
Kimberly Place
Lexington,
KY 40503
telephone
number: (859) 278-4966
email
address: energetic@windstream.net
Certificate
of Service
I, Geoffrey M.
Young, hereby certify that I have delivered the signed original of
this Motion and Notice to the Clerk of the Franklin County Circuit
Court and mailed a copy of it to the following parties on this 20th
day of April, 2015:
Mark D. Guilfoyle
Dressman Benzinger LaVelle, PSC
207 Thomas More Parkway
Crestview Hills, KY 41017-2596
Jon Salomon and Abigail R. Green
Tachau Meek, PLC
3600 National City Tower
101 South 5th Street
Louisville, KY 40202-3115
Original delivered to:
Sally Jump, Clerk
Franklin County Circuit Court
222 St. Clair Street
Frankfort, KY 40601
Signed,
Geoffrey M. Young, pro se
454 Kimberly Place
Lexington, KY 40503
No comments:
Post a Comment