Case: 3:19-cv GFVT Doc #: 1 Filed: 03/18/19 Page: 1 of 24 - Page ID#: 1

Transcription

1 Case: 3:19-cv GFVT Doc #: 1 Filed: 03/18/19 Page: 1 of 24 - Page ID#: 1 Electronically Filed UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY CENTRAL DIVISION AT FRANKFORT CASE NO. BETH LEWIS MAZE, ) ) Plaintiff, ) vs. ) ) KENTUCKY COURT OF JUSTICE, JUDICIAL ) CONDUCT COMMISSION, ) ) Serve: Stephen D. Wolnitzek ) Chairman, Judicial Conduct Commission ) P.O. Box 4266 ) Frankfort, Kentucky ) ) STEPHEN D. WOLNITZEK, INDIVIDUALLY, ) and in his OFFICIAL CAPACITY as Chairman of the ) of the KENTUCKY COURT OF JUSTICE, ) JUDICIAL CONDUCT COMMISSION ) ) Serve: Stephen D. Wolnitzek ) P.O. Box 4266 ) Frankfort, Kentucky ) ) JEFFREY C. MANDO, INDIVIDUALLY, ) and in his OFFICIAL CAPACITY as Legal Counsel ) of the KENTUCKY COURT OF JUSTICE, ) JUDICIAL CONDUCT COMMISSION ) ) Serve: Jeffrey C. Mando ) P.O. Box 4266 ) Frankfort, Kentucky ) ) JIMMY SCHAEFFER, INDIVIDUALLY, ) and in her OFFICIAL CAPACITY as Executive Secretary ) of the KENTUCKY COURT OF JUSTICE, ) JUDICIAL CONDUCT COMMISSION ) ) Serve: Jimmy Schaffer ) P.O. Box 4266 ) Frankfort, Kentucky ) 1

2 Case: 3:19-cv GFVT Doc #: 1 Filed: 03/18/19 Page: 2 of 24 - Page ID#: 2 JEFF S. TAYLOR, INDIVIDUALLY, And in his OFFICIAL CAPACITY as Member of the ) JUDICIAL CONDUCT COMMISSION Serve: Jeff S. Taylor P.O. Box 4266 Frankfort, Kentucky EDDY COLEMAN, INDIVIDUALLY, And in his OFFICIAL CAPACITY as Member of the ) JUDICIAL CONDUCT COMMISSION Serve: Eddy Coleman P.O. Box 4266 Frankfort, Kentucky DAVID BOWLES, INDIVIDUALLY, And in his OFFICIAL CAPACITY as Member of the ) JUDICIAL CONDUCT COMMISSION Serve: David Bowles P.O. Box 4266 Frankfort, Kentucky MICHAEL NOFTSGER, INDIVIDUALLY And in his OFFICIAL CAPACITY as Member of the ) JUDICIAL CONDUCT COMMISSION Serve: Michael Noftsger P.O. Box 4266 Frankfort, Kentucky GLENN E. ACREE, INDIVIDUALLY And in his OFFICIAL CAPACITY as Member of the ) JUDICIAL CONDUCT COMMISSION Serve: Glenn E. Acree P.O. Box 4266 Frankfort, Kentucky

3 Case: 3:19-cv GFVT Doc #: 1 Filed: 03/18/19 Page: 3 of 24 - Page ID#: 3 MITCH PERRY, INDIVIDUALLY And in his OFFICIAL CAPACITY as Member of the ) JUDICIAL CONDUCT COMMISSION Serve: Mitch Perry P.O. Box 4266 Frankfort, Kentucky KAREN THOMAS, INDIVIDUALLY And in his OFFICIAL CAPACITY as Member of the ) JUDICIAL CONDUCT COMMISSION Serve: Karen Thomas P.O. Box 4266 Frankfort, Kentucky MARIDELLE MALONE, INDIVIDUALLY And in his OFFICIAL CAPACITY as Member of the ) JUDICIAL CONDUCT COMMISSION Serve: Maridelle Malone 110 Washington Street Greenup, Kentucky DR. DON I.THARPE, INDIVIDUALLY And in his OFFICIAL CAPACITY as Member of the ) JUDICIAL CONDUCT COMMISSION Serve: Dr. Don I. Tharpe P.O. Box 4266 Frankfort, Kentucky R. MICHALE SULLIVAN, INDIVIDUALLY And in his OFFICIAL CAPACITY as Member of the ) JUDICIAL CONDUCT COMMISSION Serve: R. Michael Sullivan P.O. Box 4266 Frankfort, Kentucky OTHER UNKNOWN DEFENDANTS, INDIVIDUALLY, ) and in [THEIR] OFFICIAL CAPACITY ) Defendants ) ) 3

4 Case: 3:19-cv GFVT Doc #: 1 Filed: 03/18/19 Page: 4 of 24 - Page ID#: 4 ************ Experience should teach us to be most on our guard to protect liberty when the government's purposes are beneficent. Men born to freedom are naturally alert to repel invasion of their liberty by evil-minded rulers. The greatest dangers to liberty lurk in insidious encroachment by men of zeal, well-meaning but without understanding. Olmstead v. U.S., 277 U.S. 438 (1928) (dissenting) Associate Justice Louis D. Brandeis INTRODUCTION The facts of this case, while somewhat complicated, have exposed a path which the Defendants have chosen to follow in their quest to remove Judge Beth Lewis Maze from her position as Circuit Judge for the 21 st Judicial Circuit, a path which is intended to benefit others involved in a conspiracy. The conduct of the Defendants, Defendants who have acted in concert with each to violate Judge Maze s rights, is conduct which should be rejected, conduct which should never be tolerated by a civil society, especially when individuals acting under the color of law choose to abuse their positions of trust for the sole purpose of destroying the reputation of a public servant, and to do so simply to achieve goals which the Defendants could not accomplish at the ballot box. The facts of this case should shock the conscious of all those who believe in the integrity of the legal system. The facts of this case should for once act as a means to pull back the curtain on the secret proceedings of the Kentucky Court of Justice, Judicial Conduct Commission, and finally expose the unregulated power of those who hide behind the impenetrable curtain of the Judicial Conduct Commission. The facts of this case will finally expose the secret proceedings to the light of day and allow the public to have a voice, and more importantly, to allow those who find themselves in the crosshairs of the Judicial Conduct Commission which will permit them to avail themselves to a public trial envisioned by the Founding Fathers. 4

5 Case: 3:19-cv GFVT Doc #: 1 Filed: 03/18/19 Page: 5 of 24 - Page ID#: 5 I. PRELIMINARY STATEMENT This is an action for damages for violations of Plaintiff s rights protected pursuant to the United States Constitution, the Kentucky Constitution, United States Code, 42 USC 1983, United States Code, 42 USC 1985(1) and 1985(2), and KRS , et seq., Kentucky s Whistleblower Statute. II. PARTIES 1. At all times relevant herein, the Plaintiff, Beth Lewis Maze, (hereinafter Plaintiff or Judge Maze ) was a citizen of the United States and, at the time of the conduct referred to herein, resided in Owingsville, Bath County, Kentucky, with her home Judicial office being in Mt. Sterling, Montgomery County Kentucky and was and is the duly elected Circuit Court Judge of the 21 st Judicial Circuit, having first been elected in 2000 and having served as Chief Circuit Court Judge since At all times relevant herein, the Defendants, members of the Kentucky Judicial Conduct Commission, Hon. Stephen D. Wolnitzek, Judge Jeff S. Taylor, Judge Eddy Coleman, Judge David Bowles, Michael Noftsger, Judge Glenn E. Acree, Judge Mitch Perry, Judge Karen Thomas, and Hon. Mariddelle Malone, then acting special Commonwealth Attorney for the 21 st Judicial Circuit and were residents of the Commonwealth of Kentucky (hereinafter Defendants ), 3. Hon. Stephen D. Wolnitzek is the Chairman of the Judicial Conduct Commission and denied Beth Lewis Maze her due process rights when he, as Chairman, failed or refused to provide notice to Chief Circuit Judge, Beth Lewis Maze, prior to her informal conference on January 26, 2018, that the Judicial Conduct Commission (hereinafter the JCC) was considering an anonymous, unsigned complaint and an unsworn affidavit for search warrant for a van in which Judge Maze had never been, and which affidavit contained false statements about her and 5

6 Case: 3:19-cv GFVT Doc #: 1 Filed: 03/18/19 Page: 6 of 24 - Page ID#: 6 considered this untrue hearsay information in determining a proposed punishment for her, without giving her an opportunity to be heard informally, as required by SCR (2), and did not inform her that the JCC was considering this information, until the factual file was sent to her then council on March 19, Further, the JCC and its members failed to provide Judge Maze any information, whatsoever personally regarding her case as provided by SCR After Judge Maze did not accept the punishment requested by the JCC, after having failed to give Judge Maze notice and an opportunity to be heard, the Judicial Conduct Commission filed additional charges against Judge Maze on September 10, 2018, again, without giving her an opportunity to be heard informally prior to issuing such charges, pursuant to SCR (2), and again charging Judge Maze with charges on October 19, 2018, without giving Judge Maze an opportunity to be heard informally prior to bringing charges, pursuant to SCR (2) and again charged her on January 31, The charges against Judge Maze that were issued on January 31, 2019, also violated KRS et sec, the Whistleblower Act. 4. Hon. Jeffrey Mando is the hired attorney for the Judicial Conduct Commission and at all times relevant herein he was acting as a duly authorized agent for the Judicial Conduct Commission. 5. Hon. Jimmy Shaffer is the Executive Secretary of the Judicial Conduct Commission and denied Beth Lewis Maze her due process rights when he, as Executive Secretary she, failed or refused to provide notice to Chief Circuit Judge, Beth Lewis Maze, prior to her informal conference on January 26, 2018, that the Judicial Conduct Commission (hereinafter the JCC) was considering an anonymous, unsigned complaint and an unsworn affidavit for search warrant for a van in which Judge Maze had never been, and which affidavit contained false statements about her and considered this untrue hearsay information in determining a proposed punishment for her, 6

7 Case: 3:19-cv GFVT Doc #: 1 Filed: 03/18/19 Page: 7 of 24 - Page ID#: 7 without giving her an opportunity to be heard informally, as required by SCR (2), and did not inform her that the JCC was considering this information, until the factual file was sent to her then council on March 19, Further, the JCC and its members failed to provide Judge Maze any information, whatsoever personally regarding her case as provided by SCR After Judge Maze did not accept the punishment requested by the JCC, after having failed to give Judge Maze notice and an opportunity to be heard, the Judicial Conduct Commission filed additional charges against Judge Maze on September 10, 2018, again, without giving her an opportunity to be heard informally prior to issuing such charges, pursuant to SCR (2), and again charging Judge Maze with charges on October 19, 2018, without giving Judge Maze an opportunity to be heard informally prior to bringing charges, pursuant to SCR (2) and again charged her on January 31, The charges against Judge Maze that were issued on January 31, 2019, also violated KRS et sec, the Whistleblower Act. 6. Judge Jeff S. Taylor is an Appellate Court member of the Judicial Conduct Commission and denied Beth Lewis Maze her due process rights when he, as member, failed or refused to provide notice to Chief Circuit Judge, Beth Lewis Maze, prior to her informal conference on January 26, 2018, that the Judicial Conduct Commission (hereinafter the JCC) was considering an anonymous, unsigned complaint and an unsworn affidavit for search warrant for a van in which Judge Maze had never been, and which affidavit contained false statements about her and considered this untrue hearsay information in determining a proposed punishment for her, without giving her an opportunity to be heard informally, as required by SCR (2), and did not inform her that the JCC was considering this information, until the factual file was sent to her then council on March 19, Further, the JCC and its members failed to provide Judge Maze any information, whatsoever personally regarding her case as provided by SCR After Judge 7

8 Case: 3:19-cv GFVT Doc #: 1 Filed: 03/18/19 Page: 8 of 24 - Page ID#: 8 Maze did not accept the punishment requested by the JCC, after having failed to give Judge Maze notice and an opportunity to be heard, the Judicial Conduct Commission filed additional charges against Judge Maze on September 10, 2018, again, without giving her an opportunity to be heard informally prior to issuing such charges, pursuant to SCR (2), and again charging Judge Maze with charges on October 19, 2018, without giving Judge Maze an opportunity to be heard informally prior to bringing charges, pursuant to SCR (2) and again charged her on January 31, The charges against Judge Maze that were issued on January 31, 2019, also violated KRS et sec, the Whistleblower Act. 7. Judge Eddy Coleman is a Circuit Court member of the Judicial Conduct Commission and denied Beth Lewis Maze her due process rights when he, as member, failed or refused to provide notice to Chief Circuit Judge, Beth Lewis Maze, prior to her informal conference on January 26, 2018, that the Judicial Conduct Commission (hereinafter the JCC) was considering an anonymous, unsigned complaint and an unsworn affidavit for search warrant for a van in which Judge Maze had never been, and which affidavit contained false statements about her and considered this untrue hearsay information in determining a proposed punishment for her, without giving her an opportunity to be heard informally, as required by SCR (2), and did not inform her that the JCC was considering this information, until the factual file was sent to her then council on March 19, Further, the JCC and its members failed to provide Judge Maze any information, whatsoever personally regarding her case as provided by SCR After Judge Maze did not accept the punishment requested by the JCC, after having failed to give Judge Maze notice and an opportunity to be heard, the Judicial Conduct Commission filed additional charges against Judge Maze on September 10, 2018, again, without giving her an opportunity to be heard informally prior to issuing such charges, pursuant to SCR (2), and again charging Judge 8

9 Case: 3:19-cv GFVT Doc #: 1 Filed: 03/18/19 Page: 9 of 24 - Page ID#: 9 Maze with charges on October 19, 2018, without giving Judge Maze an opportunity to be heard informally prior to bringing charges, pursuant to SCR (2) and again charged her on January 31, The charges against Judge Maze that were issued on January 31, 2019, also violated KRS et sec, the Whistleblower Act. 8. David Bowles is a District Court member of the Judicial Conduct Commission and denied Beth Lewis Maze her due process rights when he, as member, failed or refused to provide notice to Chief Circuit Judge, Beth Lewis Maze, prior to her informal conference on January 26, 2018, that the Judicial Conduct Commission (hereinafter the JCC) was considering an anonymous, unsigned complaint and an unsworn affidavit for search warrant for a van in which Judge Maze had never been, and which affidavit contained false statements about her and considered this untrue hearsay information in determining a proposed punishment for her, without giving her an opportunity to be heard informally, as required by SCR (2), and did not inform her that the JCC was considering this information, until the factual file was sent to her then council on March 19, Further, the JCC and its members failed to provide Judge Maze any information, whatsoever personally regarding her case as provided by SCR After Judge Maze did not accept the punishment requested by the JCC, after having failed to give Judge Maze notice and an opportunity to be heard, the Judicial Conduct Commission filed additional charges against Judge Maze on September 10, 2018, again, without giving her an opportunity to be heard informally prior to issuing such charges, pursuant to SCR (2), and again charging Judge Maze with charges on October 19, 2018, without giving Judge Maze an opportunity to be heard informally prior to bringing charges, pursuant to SCR (2) and again charged her on January 31, The charges against Judge Maze that were issued on January 31, 2019, also violated KRS et sec, the Whistleblower Act. 9

10 Case: 3:19-cv GFVT Doc #: 1 Filed: 03/18/19 Page: 10 of 24 - Page ID#: Michael A. Noftsger as citizen member and as alternate member of the Judicial Conduct Commission and as alternate member, participated in deliberations with acting members and denied Beth Lewis Maze her due process rights when he, as member, failed or refused to provide notice to Chief Circuit Judge, Beth Lewis Maze, prior to her informal conference on January 26, 2018, that the Judicial Conduct Commission (hereinafter the JCC) was considering an anonymous, unsigned complaint and an unsworn affidavit for search warrant for a van in which Judge Maze had never been, and which affidavit contained false statements about her and considered this untrue hearsay information in determining a proposed punishment for her, without giving her an opportunity to be heard informally, as required by SCR (2), and did not inform her that the JCC was considering this information, until the factual file was sent to her then council on March 19, Further, the JCC and its members failed to provide Judge Maze any information, whatsoever personally regarding her case as provided by SCR After Judge Maze did not accept the punishment requested by the JCC, after having failed to give Judge Maze notice and an opportunity to be heard, the Judicial Conduct Commission filed additional charges against Judge Maze on September 10, 2018, again, without giving her an opportunity to be heard informally prior to issuing such charges, pursuant to SCR (2), and again charging Judge Maze with charges on October 19, 2018, without giving Judge Maze an opportunity to be heard informally prior to bringing charges, pursuant to SCR (2) and again charged her on January 31, The charges against Judge Maze that were issued on January 31, 2019, also violated KRS et sec, the Whistleblower Act. 10. Dr. Don I. Tharpe as citizen member of the Judicial Conduct Commission and denied Beth Lewis Maze her due process rights when he, as member, failed or refused to provide notice to Chief Circuit Judge, Beth Lewis Maze, prior to her informal conference on January 26, 10

11 Case: 3:19-cv GFVT Doc #: 1 Filed: 03/18/19 Page: 11 of 24 - Page ID#: , that the Judicial Conduct Commission (hereinafter the JCC) was considering an anonymous, unsigned complaint and an unsworn affidavit for search warrant for a van in which Judge Maze had never been, and which affidavit contained false statements about her and considered this untrue hearsay information in determining a proposed punishment for her, without giving her an opportunity to be heard informally, as required by SCR (2), and did not inform her that the JCC was considering this information, until the factual file was sent to her then council on March 19, Further, the JCC and its members failed to provide Judge Maze any information, whatsoever personally regarding her case as provided by SCR After Judge Maze did not accept the punishment requested by the JCC, after having failed to give Judge Maze notice and an opportunity to be heard, the Judicial Conduct Commission filed additional charges against Judge Maze on September 10, 2018, again, without giving her an opportunity to be heard informally prior to issuing such charges, pursuant to SCR (2), and again charging Judge Maze with charges on October 19, 2018, without giving Judge Maze an opportunity to be heard informally prior to bringing charges, pursuant to SCR (2) and again charged her on January 31, The charges against Judge Maze that were issued on January 31, 2019, also violated KRS et sec, the Whistleblower Act. 11. R. Michael Sullivan as alternate citizen member of the Judicial Conduct Commission and denied Beth Lewis Maze her due process rights when he, as member, failed or refused to provide notice to Chief Circuit Judge, Beth Lewis Maze, prior to her informal conference on January 26, 2018, that the Judicial Conduct Commission (hereinafter the JCC) was considering an anonymous, unsigned complaint and an unsworn affidavit for search warrant for a van in which Judge Maze had never been, and which affidavit contained false statements about her and considered this untrue hearsay information in determining a proposed punishment for her, 11

12 Case: 3:19-cv GFVT Doc #: 1 Filed: 03/18/19 Page: 12 of 24 - Page ID#: 12 without giving her an opportunity to be heard informally, as required by SCR (2), and did not inform her that the JCC was considering this information, until the factual file was sent to her then council on March 19, Further, the JCC and its members failed to provide Judge Maze any information, whatsoever personally regarding her case as provided by SCR After Judge Maze did not accept the punishment requested by the JCC, after having failed to give Judge Maze notice and an opportunity to be heard, the Judicial Conduct Commission filed additional charges against Judge Maze on September 10, 2018, again, without giving her an opportunity to be heard informally prior to issuing such charges, pursuant to SCR (2), and again charging Judge Maze with charges on October 19, 2018, without giving Judge Maze an opportunity to be heard informally prior to bringing charges, pursuant to SCR (2) and again charged her on January 31, The charges against Judge Maze that were issued on January 31, 2019, also violated KRS et sec, the Whistleblower Act. 12. Glenn E. Acree as alternate appellate court member of the Judicial Conduct Commission and as alternate member, participated in deliberations with acting members and denied Beth Lewis Maze her due process rights when he, as member, failed or refused to provide notice to Chief Circuit Judge, Beth Lewis Maze, prior to her informal conference on January 26, 2018, that the Judicial Conduct Commission (hereinafter the JCC) was considering an anonymous, unsigned complaint and an unsworn affidavit for search warrant for a van in which Judge Maze had never been, and which affidavit contained false statements about her and considered this untrue hearsay information in determining a proposed punishment for her, without giving her an opportunity to be heard informally, as required by SCR (2), and did not inform her that the JCC was considering this information, until the factual file was sent to her then council on March 19, Further, the JCC and its members failed to provide Judge Maze any information, 12

13 Case: 3:19-cv GFVT Doc #: 1 Filed: 03/18/19 Page: 13 of 24 - Page ID#: 13 whatsoever personally regarding her case as provided by SCR After Judge Maze did not accept the punishment requested by the JCC, after having failed to give Judge Maze notice and an opportunity to be heard, the Judicial Conduct Commission filed additional charges against Judge Maze on September 10, 2018, again, without giving her an opportunity to be heard informally prior to issuing such charges, pursuant to SCR (2), and again charging Judge Maze with charges on October 19, 2018, without giving Judge Maze an opportunity to be heard informally prior to bringing charges, pursuant to SCR (2) and again charged her on January 31, The charges against Judge Maze that were issued on January 31, 2019, also violated KRS et sec, the Whistleblower Act. 13. Mitch Perry as alternate circuit court member of the Judicial Conduct Commission and as alternate member, participated in deliberations with acting member and denied Beth Lewis Maze her due process rights when he, as member, failed or refused to provide notice to Chief Circuit Judge, Beth Lewis Maze, prior to her informal conference on January 26, 2018, that the Judicial Conduct Commission (hereinafter the JCC) was considering an anonymous, unsigned complaint and an unsworn affidavit for search warrant for a van in which Judge Maze had never been, and which affidavit contained false statements about her and considered this untrue hearsay information in determining a proposed punishment for her, without giving her an opportunity to be heard informally, as required by SCR (2), and did not inform her that the JCC was considering this information, until the factual file was sent to her then council on March 19, Further, the JCC and its members failed to provide Judge Maze any information, whatsoever personally regarding her case as provided by SCR After Judge Maze did not accept the punishment requested by the JCC, after having failed to give Judge Maze notice and an opportunity to be heard, the Judicial Conduct Commission filed additional charges against Judge Maze on 13

14 Case: 3:19-cv GFVT Doc #: 1 Filed: 03/18/19 Page: 14 of 24 - Page ID#: 14 September 10, 2018, again, without giving her an opportunity to be heard informally prior to issuing such charges, pursuant to SCR (2), and again charging Judge Maze with charges on October 19, 2018, without giving Judge Maze an opportunity to be heard informally prior to bringing charges, pursuant to SCR (2) and again charged her on January 31, The charges against Judge Maze that were issued on January 31, 2019, also violated KRS et sec, the Whistleblower Act. 14. Karen Thomas as alternate district court member of the Judicial Conduct Commission and as alternate member, participated in deliberations with acting members and denied Beth Lewis Maze her due process rights when he, as member, failed or refused to provide notice to Chief Circuit Judge, Beth Lewis Maze, prior to her informal conference on January 26, 2018, that the Judicial Conduct Commission (hereinafter the JCC) was considering an anonymous, unsigned complaint and an unsworn affidavit for search warrant for a van in which Judge Maze had never been, and which affidavit contained false statements about her and considered this untrue hearsay information in determining a proposed punishment for her, without giving her an opportunity to be heard informally, as required by SCR (2), and did not inform her that the JCC was considering this information, until the factual file was sent to her then council on March 19, Further, the JCC and its members failed to provide Judge Maze any information, whatsoever personally regarding her case as provided by SCR After Judge Maze did not accept the punishment requested by the JCC, after having failed to give Judge Maze notice and an opportunity to be heard, the Judicial Conduct Commission filed additional charges against Judge Maze on September 10, 2018, again, without giving her an opportunity to be heard informally prior to issuing such charges, pursuant to SCR (2), and again charging Judge Maze with charges on October 19, 2018, without giving Judge Maze an opportunity to be heard informally 14

15 Case: 3:19-cv GFVT Doc #: 1 Filed: 03/18/19 Page: 15 of 24 - Page ID#: 15 prior to bringing charges, pursuant to SCR (2) and again charged her on January 31, The charges against Judge Maze that were issued on January 31, 2019, also violated KRS et sec, the Whistleblower Act. 15. The Defendant, Maridelle Malone at all times relevant herein was appointed as special prosecutor in the Criminal style Commonwealth of Kentucky v. Laura Lewis Maze AKA Beth Lewis Maze Bath Circuit Court 18-CR III. JURISDICTION AND VENUE 16. The allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 through 15 inclusive, are incorporated into this cause of action by reference as if set forth in full. 17. Plaintiff resides in the Commonwealth of Kentucky and the Defendants perform duties and/or are governmental entities in the Commonwealth of Kentucky, including Franklin County, and various other locations in the Eastern District of Kentucky. 18. This lawsuit is filed, and the claims set forth herein are for violations of the Plaintiff s rights under the United States Constitution, the Kentucky Constitution, United States Code, 42 USC 1983, United States Code, 42 USC 1985(1) and 1985(2), and KRS , et seq., Kentucky s Whistleblower statute, for acts of the Defendants which in some instances were done in their official capacities, and in other instances for acts of the Defendants in their individual and official capacities. 19. The Court has jurisdiction to entertain Plaintiff s claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2201, the Declaratory Judgement Act, 42 U.S.C. 1983, 42 U.S.C. 1985(1) and (2), seeking vindication of Plaintiff s federal Constitutional and statutory rights. 20. The wrongful conduct referred to herein was initiated in Franklin, and other counties in the Eastern District of Kentucky. 15

16 Case: 3:19-cv GFVT Doc #: 1 Filed: 03/18/19 Page: 16 of 24 - Page ID#: Each of the acts of the Defendants alleged in this Complaint were performed by them under the color of law and pretense of a statute, ordinance, regulations, customs, policies, and usages of the Commonwealth of Kentucky, including Kentucky Supreme Court administrative regulations. 22. The Defendants were at all times herein acting as part of their regular and official employment and within their scope of their employment for various positions they held, and some still hold, with the Commonwealth of Kentucky. 23. The Court otherwise has jurisdiction to hear all causes of action against all Defendants. 24. Plaintiff has also alleged a state claim against Defendant Kentucky Court of Justice, Judicial Conduct Commission for a violation of KRS , et seq., Kentucky s Whistleblower statute, for retaliation against the Plaintiff after she properly reported a violation of Kentucky law, that is, for threatening a witness in a case pending before both the Judicial Conduct Commission and in a pending criminal action in Bath Circuit Court. 25. The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky has personal jurisdiction over each of the named parties, and the conduct of the named Defendants, jointly and severally, constitute a federal cause of action and state a cause of action, and, therefore, this action may be brought in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky, the district where the alleged acts and/or omissions of the named Defendants took place. 16

17 Case: 3:19-cv GFVT Doc #: 1 Filed: 03/18/19 Page: 17 of 24 - Page ID#: 17 IV. FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS A. VIOLATIONS OF THE PLAINTIFF S RIGHTS OF DUE PROCESS OF LAW REGARDING THE RELEASE OF GRAND JURY TESTIMONY 26. The allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 through 24, are incorporated into this cause of action by reference as if set forth in full. 27. On November 13, 2018, the Judicial Conduct Commission issued a subpoena to Defendant and Special Prosecutor, Maridelle Malone for production of Grand Jury testimony in Bath County case number 18-CR-00059, Commonwealth of Kentucky v. Laura Lewis Maze, AKA Beth Lewis Maze. The Subpoena was issued by Defendant JCC Executive Secretary Jimmy Shaffer. And signed by Defendant JCC Counsel Jeffery C. Mando The service of this subpoena on the Defendant Malone without serving Judge Maze or her counsel violates Kentucky Civil Rule (3). 29. The subpoena also violates Civil Rule 45.01(1) by failing to list the address of the attorney causing the subpoena to be issued and by failing to specify time for the production. 30. Compliance with this subpoena violates the secrecy of the Grand Jury proceedings pursuant to the Kentucky Rules of Criminal Procedure (RCr) 5.16 (3) and On or about November 26, 2018, the Judicial Conduct Commission received the secret Grand Jury testimony from Defendant Malone. B. VIOLATION OF KRS et. seq., KENTUCKY S WHISTLEBLOWER ACT 32. On November 26, 2018, Elected Circuit Court Clerk Kim Barker Tabor gave deposition testimony in the Judicial Conduct proceeding involving Judge Maze. 1 Copy of Judicial Conduct Commission subpoena attached hereto and made a part hereof as Exhibit A. Copy of letter from Jeffrey C. Mando dated December 18, 2018 with explanation of the violation of criminal rules attached hereto and made a part hereof as Exhibit B. 17

18 Case: 3:19-cv GFVT Doc #: 1 Filed: 03/18/19 Page: 18 of 24 - Page ID#: The testimony related to orders which are the subject of the Judicial Conduct Commission charges and all three counts of the indictment pending against Judge Maze. 34. Clerk Tabor s testimony included her overhearing conversations among individuals who were conspiring to have Judge Maze removed from her elected position which she had held for nineteen (19) years The statements included Circuit Judge William Lane, Commonwealth Attorney Ronnie Goldy, District Judge William Roberts, Deanna Roberts, Circuit Judge William Lane s secretary, who is also District Judge William Roberts wife, Assistant Commonwealth Attorney Keith Craycraft and Assistant Commonwealth Attorney Ashton McKenzie. IV. INJUNCTIVE RELIEF COUNT I CONSTITUTIONAL AND STATUTORY VIOLATIONS 36. The allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 through 35, are incorporated into this cause of action by reference as if set forth in full U.S.C Civil action for Deprivation of Rights, provides, Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory or the District of Columbia, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress, except that in any action brought against a judicial officer for an act or omission taken in such officer s judicial capacity, injunctive relief shall not be granted unless a declaratory decree was violated or declaratory relief was unavailable. 2 Copy of message sent to Kim Barker-Tabor attached hereto and made a part hereof as Exhibit D. Copy of testimony of Kim Barker-Tabor attached hereto and made a part hereof as Exhibit D. 18

19 Case: 3:19-cv GFVT Doc #: 1 Filed: 03/18/19 Page: 19 of 24 - Page ID#: 19 For the purposes of this section, any Act of Congress applicable exclusively to the District of Columbia shall be considered to be a statute of the District of Columbia U.S.C 1985 (1) - Preventing officer from performing duties, provides, If two or more persons in any State or Territory conspire to prevent, by force, intimidation, or threat, any person from accepting or holding any office, trust, or place of confidence under the United States, or from discharging any duties thereof; or to induce by like means any officer of the United States to leave any State, district, or place, where his duties as an officer are required to be performed, or to injure him in his person or property on account of his lawful discharge of the duties of his office, or while engaged in the lawful discharge thereof, or to injure his property so as to molest, interrupt, hinder, or impede him in the discharge of his official duties U.S.C. 1985(42 U.S.C 1985 (2) Obstructing justice; intimidating party, witness, or juror, provides, If two or more persons in any State or Territory conspire or go in disguise on the highway or on the premises of another, for the purpose of depriving, either directly or indirectly, any person or class of persons of the equal protection of the laws, or of equal privileges and immunities under the laws; or for the purpose of preventing or hindering the constituted authorities of any State or Territory from giving or securing to all persons within such State or Territory the equal protection of the laws; or if two or more persons conspire to prevent by force, intimidation, or threat, any citizen who is lawfully entitled to vote, from giving his support or advocacy in a legal manner, toward or in favor of the election of any lawfully qualified person as an elector for President or Vice President, or as a Member of Congress of the United States; or to injure any citizen in person or property on account of such support or advocacy; in any case of conspiracy set forth in this section, if one or more persons engaged therein do, or cause to be done, any act in furtherance of the object of such conspiracy, whereby another is injured in 19

20 Case: 3:19-cv GFVT Doc #: 1 Filed: 03/18/19 Page: 20 of 24 - Page ID#: 20 his person or property, or deprived of having and exercising any right or privilege of a citizen of the United States, the party so injured or deprived may have an action for the recovery of damages occasioned by such injury or deprivation, against any one or more of the conspirators. 40. The conduct of the Defendants in this case violated Plaintiff s constitutional rights to procedural and substantive due process, and her property rights, in her position as a duly elected circuit judge, rights which are guaranteed to the Plaintiff pursuant to the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution and Section One of the Kentucky Constitution and, therefore, are actionable pursuant to 42 U.S.C (1) and 1985(2). 41. The conduct and actions of the Defendants, acting in both their individual and official capacities, caused permanent harm to the Plaintiff and should be compensated accordingly. COUNT II VIOLATION OF KRS , et seq. 42. The allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 through 41 inclusive, are incorporated into this cause of action by reference as if set forth in full. 43. KRS , et seq., provides, Reprisal against public employee for disclosure of violations of law, provides, Reprisal against public employee for disclosure of violations of law prohibited -- Construction of statute. (1) No employer shall subject to reprisal, or directly or indirectly use, or threaten to use, any official authority or influence, in any manner whatsoever, which tends to discourage, restrain, depress, dissuade, deter, prevent, interfere with, coerce, or discriminate against any employee who in good faith reports, discloses, divulges, or otherwise brings to the attention of the Kentucky Legislative Ethics Commission, the Attorney General, the Auditor of Public Accounts, the Executive Branch Ethics Commission, the General Assembly of the Commonwealth of Kentucky or any of its members or employees, the Legislative Research Commission or any of its committees, members or employees, the judiciary or any member or 20

21 Case: 3:19-cv GFVT Doc #: 1 Filed: 03/18/19 Page: 21 of 24 - Page ID#: 21 employee of the judiciary, any law enforcement agency or its employees, or any other appropriate body or authority, any facts or information relative to an actual or suspected violation of any law, statute, executive order, administrative regulation, mandate, rule, or ordinance of the United States, the Commonwealth of Kentucky, or any of its political subdivisions, or any facts or information relative to actual or suspected mismanagement, waste, fraud, abuse of authority, or a substantial and specific danger to public health or safety. No employer shall require any employee to give notice prior to making such a report, disclosure, or divulgence. 44. The conduct and actions of the Defendant Judicial Conduct Commission, an administrative body Kentucky Court of Justice, in retaliation for Plaintiff having reported the intimidation of a witness to the appropriate body or authority, caused permanent harm to the Plaintiff and should be compensated accordingly. 45. Judicial Conduct Commission, an administrative body Kentucky Court of Justice. The actions of the Defendant Judicial Conduct Commission against the Plaintiff resulted in injuries pursuant to 46. KRS , et seq., provides, generally, protection from reprisal and/retaliation to public employees who disclose or report information relative to an actual or suspected violation of any law, statute, executive order, administrative regulation, mandate, rule, or ordinance of the United States, the Commonwealth of Kentucky, or any of its political subdivisions, or any facts or information relative to actual or suspected mismanagement, waste, fraud, abuse of authority, or a substantial and specific danger to public health or safety. This statute is known as the whistleblower statute. 47. Plaintiff was at all times relevant hereto an employee within the scope of the definition of the term employee as set forth in KRS (1). 21

22 Case: 3:19-cv GFVT Doc #: 1 Filed: 03/18/19 Page: 22 of 24 - Page ID#: The Kentucky Court of Justice Office was and/is an employer within the scope of the definition of the term employer set forth in KRS (2). 49. During Plaintiff s employment with the Kentucky Court of Justice, Plaintiff reported and disclosed information, to her Chief Regional Judge, Defendant Judge, Eddie Coleman,* that Kim Barker Tabor, the elected Circuit Clerk of Rowan county had been threatened by Deanna Roberts, another Court of Justice employee, who had been conspiring with others to have Judge Maze removed from office, to advance the promotion of other conspirators including the position they hoped to fill with Judge Maze s removal. Judge Maze reported to Eddy Coleman that Deanna Roberts had threatened Tabor over the testimony Clerk Tabor had given tin her JCC deposition, which constituted suspected violations of law, that is, witness intimidation, a violation of law set forth more fully above Because of Plaintiff s disclosure to her Chief Regional Judge, Plaintiff was subjected to retaliation and reprisal, which culminated in an additional charge being filed against her in her pending Judicial Conduct Commission complaint. 51. Plaintiff made the above-stated disclosure to the appropriate authority as set forth in KRS and as explained in Workforce Dev. Cabinet v. Gaines, 276 S.W.3d 789 (Ky. 2008). 52. The aforementioned charge filed by the Judicial Conduct Commission, an administrative body of the Kentucky Court of Justice was committed in violation of KRS , et seq. 1. Judge Maze mistakenly believed that Judge Coleman had recused from her JCC case because he did not attend her one and only informal conference on January 26,

23 Case: 3:19-cv GFVT Doc #: 1 Filed: 03/18/19 Page: 23 of 24 - Page ID#: The aforementioned charge against Plaintiff was a direct violation of KRS which provides that, [a]ny person who willfully violates the provisions of KRS (1) [reprisal against public employee for disclosure of violations of law prohibited] shall be guilty of a Class A misdemeanor. 54. As a direct and proximate result of the aforementioned conduct, Plaintiff has suffered great emotional distress and/or embarrassment and/or humiliation and/or mental anguish and/or potential wage loss and/or medical expenses. 55. The conduct and actions of the Defendant Kentucky Court of Justice, and the Judicial Conduct Commission, an administrative body of the Kentucky Court of Justice, in retaliation for Plaintiff s having reported the intimidation of a witness to Chief Regional Circuit Judge for the Seventh (7 th ) Supreme Court District, also designated by the Kentucky Court of Justice as the Mountain Region which Judge Maze s counties fall within. The conduct of the Defendants has caused permanent harm to the Plaintiff and, as a result of the wrongful, reckless and indifference to the rights of the Plaintiff should result in the imposition of both compensatory and punitive damages against the Defendant Kentucky Court of Justice and the Judicial Conduct Commission. WHEREFORE, for the reasons set forth above, the Plaintiff seeks Judgment against the Defendants, jointly and severally, as follows: 1. Judgment for injunctive relief restraining the Defendant Kentucky Court of Justice, and the Judicial Conduct Commission for prosecuting the pending charges against the Plaintiff, charges which have been prosecuted in violation of Plaintiff s constitutional and statutory rights pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1983, 42 U.S.C. 1985(1) and (2), seeking vindication of Plaintiff s federal Constitutional and statutory rights; 23

24 Case: 3:19-cv GFVT Doc #: 1 Filed: 03/18/19 Page: 24 of 24 - Page ID#: Judgement for compensatory and punitive damages allowed by law in an amount against all other Defendants who acted both officially and individually as set forth above, said judgment being joint and several; KRS ; 3. Trial by jury; 4. For Plaintiff s court costs and attorney s fees as set forth in 42 U.S.C and 5. For all other relief to which Plaintiff is entitled. Respectfully submitted, /s/thomas E. Clay Thomas E. Clay, P.S.C. 917 Lily Creek Road Louisville, KY Telephone: (502) Facsimile: (502) tclay@tclaylaw.com /s/mark A. Wohlander Mark A. Wohlander Attorney at Law P.O. Box Lexington, Kentucky Telephone: (859) Facsimile: (859) mark@wohlanderlaw.com 24