COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY
FRANKLIN CIRCUIT COURT
DIVISION I
CIVIL ACTION NO. 13-CI-1316
DAVID
ADAMS
PLAINTIFF
V.
REPLY TO DEFENDANTS’ RESPONSE
TO PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO RECONSIDER
COMMONWEALTH OF
KENTUCKY,
STEVEN L. BESHEAR,
GOVERNOR, et
al.
DEFENDANTS
Defendants Beshear, Marcum, King and Webb devote an inordinate amount of space
in their latest brief to seeking dismissal of Plaintiff’s Motion to Reconsider
on technical grounds. Defendants rely on an incomplete reading and
understanding of the rules of service. CR 5.03 states clearly of proof of service:
“Proof may be by certificate of a member of the bar of the court or by
affidavit of the person who served the papers, or by any other proof
satisfactory to the court. (emphasis added)
Plaintiff broadcast the Motion to Reconsider in its entirety on the internet on
sites monitored by agents and attorneys of Defendants before and after serving
it upon the Clerk. The Court’s Order entered January 29, 2014 in response to
the Motion to Reconsider is evidence enough that Defendants were made aware of
the Motion, otherwise the Court would be in violation of the CR 5.03
requirement that such evidence “shall be filed before action is to be taken
thereon by the court or the parties.” The Court is well within its rights to
determine sufficiency of service and a complete reading of the Rules makes
clear that sufficient care was taken to do so.
The remainder of
Defendants’ Response was devoted to continuing to demonstrate their lack of
understanding of the facts and legal arguments in this case. Defendants state “mere
possibility of harm is insufficient to provide standing,” indicating a failure
to grasp that their own violation of the Kentucky Constitution is by itself
real harm, victimizing citizens dependent on its protections, of which
Plaintiff is one, which is sufficient for standing. Plaintiff alleged violation
of the Kentucky Constitution by Defendants and the Court made key legal errors in
avoiding examination of that harm, which was addressed at length in Motion to
Reconsider. Defendants compounded the errors in their Response by making a
demonstrably false statement: “The Court
properly determined that the adoption of Common Core State Standards as the
Kentucky core Academic Standards, via regulation and pursuant to Senate Bill 1
(2009), did not violate Section 183.” The Court made no such ruling.
Instead, the Court ruled mistakenly that Plaintiff could not bring his
complaint to the Court to test the constitutionality of state officials’
actions with state taxpayer dollars and authority granted with limitations
defined in the Kentucky Constitution by and on behalf of Kentucky taxpayers.
The Court stated “Absent an allegation of
a constitutional defect in the statute or the administrative regulation, this
Court cannot adjudicate differences of opinion over educational policy.”
While this statement, if applied to Rose v. Council for Better Education,
Inc., 790 S.W.2d 186 (Ky. 1989), may have forbidden that landmark case from
advancing, it also is not the same as conferring constitutional imprimatur upon
Defendants’ actions. Setting aside complaints not made by Plaintiff and resolving
the question of official violations of Section 183 that occurred and their real,
negative impact on Plaintiff as alleged in the Complaint deserve far more
serious consideration than have been given in this setting. Plaintiff
respectfully requests the Court to reconsider its January 14, 2014 Order in
this matter.
Respectfully
submitted,
__________________
David
Adams
121
Nave Place
Nicholasville
KY 40356
Plaintiff
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
This certifies the
forgoing was served this 10th day of February, 2014 via U.S. Mail
upon:
David Wickersham
Assistant General
Counsel
Kentucky Department of
Education
Capitol Plaza Tower
500 Mero Street
First Floor
Frankfort KY 40601
Travis Powell
General Counsel
Council on Postsecondary
Education
1024 Capitol Center
Drive, Suite 320
Frankfort KY 40601
Alicia Sneed
General Counsel
Education Professional
Standards Board
100 Airport Road, Third
Floor
Frankfort KY 40601
__________________
David
Adams
