Wednesday, February 05, 2014

Why Judge Shepherd Will Scrap David Adams' Motion to Reconsider

Denied or Struck - it hardly matters. Adams' Motion is Doomed.

 In these last days of Don Quixote de Nicholasville's ill-fated anti-Common Core suit, Governor Steve Beshear responded to TEA Party activist David Adams' Motion to Reconsider with panache. He not only wants Franklin County Circuit Court Judge Phillip Shepherd to deny Adams' Motion, but he wants to have it struck from the record for various procedural and legal defects. I can't think of any reason Judge Shepherd won't do just that.

My reading of Adams' Motion revealed nothing more than a rehash of arguments that the court already heard, already considered, and already rejected.

In his 6-page Response to Plaintiff's Motion to Reconsider, the governor's attorney, David Wickersham (Department of Education), outlined several reasons why the judge should deny Adams' Motion:
  1. The Courts Order - the one dismissing the case with prejudice - was sufficient. The court heard Adams' arguments, such as they were, and probably would have reviewed his evidence if he had presented any. Point by point, the court responded to Adams' complaint in a 6-page ruling that reviewed the pleadings, motions and arguments.
  2. Adams lacked standing to bring his suit in the first place. Relying on the "almighty taxpayer" argument, Adams ignored the law, failed to show the court how he had been damaged by Common Core (because he hadn't been damaged one supposes), and  failed to present to the court a justicable case.
  3. Adams failed to show how he was prejudiced by Senate Bill 1 or any of the legislative acts or regulatory proceedings that led to the adoption and implementation of Common Core. 
  4. The court determined that Section 183 of the Constitution was not violated by the legislature doing what only the legislature can do - pass laws affecting the public schools in the state.
  5. Adams Motion failed to adhere to the procedural requirements of the legal system as described in CR 59.05. Nowhere does his Motion to Reconsider refute the facts of the case or the court's legal reasoning. Adams utterly fails to identify any errors in the court's application of the law. 
  6. CR 59.05 holds that a Motion to amend a judgment must be received by the court and affected parties no later than 10-days from the court's rendering of the original judgment. Adams apparently never served the Governor or other Defendants, only the court.
  7. Further, CR 59.05 provides that the court may not change a ruling based on a motion received after 10-days. Therefore, Adams' motion is not properly before the court and may well be stricken.

Adams insists his case still has a long way to go. Not in this court.

No comments: