CIVIL ACTION NO. JOHN ROYALTY, Individually and as Mayor of the City of Bardstown, Kentucky v. PETITION FOR DECLARATION OF RIGHTS. FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF. AND FOR DAMAGES BARDSTOWN CITY COUNCIL, A Public Agency and Legislative Body Consisting of: JOE BUCKMAN 213 Broadway Bardstown, KY 40004 KECIA COPELAND 149 Castleton Dr. Bardstown, KY 40004 JOHN s. KELLEY, JR. 3208 Kings Ct. Bardstown, KY 40004 DICK HEATON PO. Box 91 Bardstown, KY 40004 BILL SHECKLES 408 Gaffney Ln. Bardstown, KY 40004 ROLAND 225 Elmorest Dr. Bardstown, KY 40004 and ANDY BESHEAR Attorney General Commonwealth of Kentucky Capitol Building, Ste. 11 8 700 Capital Avenue Frankfort, KY 40601 1 NELSON CIRCUIT COURT DIVISION PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS 000001 of 000018 Comes the Plaintiff, by counsel, and for his Petition for Declaration of Rights, Petition for Injunctive Relief, and Complaint for Damages, and states herein as follows: JURISDICTIONAL RECITALS 1. The Plaintiff,]ohn Royalty (hereinafter, ?Plaintiff? and/ or ?Mayor? is and at all pertinent times mentioned herein was, a resident of Nelson County, Kentucky. 2. The Plaintiff is the lawfully elected Mayor of the City of Bardstown, Kentucky, pursuant to KRS 3. The Defendant, Bardstown City Council (hereinafter ?the Council?) is a legislative body and public agency of the City of Bardstown, Kentucky organized under the ?mayor-council plan? codi?ed at KRS 83A.130. 4. The current individual members of the Council are Defendants Joe Buckman (hereinafter ?Buckrnan?), Kecia Copeland S. Kelley, Jr. (?Kelley?), Dick Heaton (?Heaton?), Bill Sheckles (?Sheekles?), and Roland \Williams (?Williams?). 5. Jurisdiction and venue are appropriate in this Court, and this action is prosecuted, pursuant to KRS 418.040, KRS 418.045, CR 65.01, at. 534., KRS 452.460, and 42 U.S.C. ?1983, at tag. 6. The Attorney General of the Commonwealth of Kentucky is made a party pursuant to KRS 418.075 by virtue of a challenge to the constitutionality of a statute, namely KRS FACTUAL RECITALS 7. The Plaintiff reiterates and incorporates the allegations contained in averments one (1) through (6) as if fully set out. 8. On November 2, 2016, prior to a scheduled Council meeting, a number of ?packets? of information contained in blank manila envelopes were found located outside the Council chambers. 000002 of 000018 9. Upon information and belief, the ?packets? contained copies of various items of public record information concerning Councilwoman Copeland and then~Councilman, Francis Lydian (hereinafter ?Lydian?). 10. The general election for the Bardstown City Council beginning january 1, 2017 took place on Tuesday, November 8, 2016. As a result of that election, Copeland was re?elected; Lydian was not. 11. Subsequent to the election, Copeland retained attorney Keith Sparks (?Sparks? to represent her in connection with the placement of the ?packets? on November 2, 2016. 12. Sparks drafted a letter to the Council demanding that the Council conduct a publicly? funded investigation into alleged wrongdoing regarding the ?packets? on behalf of Copeland, his client. 13. Simultaneously, Sparks was representing Torn Roby a former City of Bardstown police of?cer, in a highly-publicized wrongful termination lawsuit against the City of Bardstown and against the Mayor, individually and of?cially. 14. On November 22, 2016, the Council voted to investigate the City of Bardstown. The parameters of the investigation were to investigate ?the facts and circumstances surrounding the placement of packets of information? concerning two then-sitting Council members outside of the Council chambers prior to the November 2, 2016, City Council meeting. 15. Authority for the Council investigation was cited as KRS Pursuant to that municipal order, the Council was to hire an ?investigator? and that funding for that investigator would derive from the Council Contingency Fund. Then~Counciiman Fred Hagan (?Hagan?) told the 2016 Council and news media that the anticipated cost to taxpayers would be between $3,500 and $5,000. 76A84628-5066-4Bca-8?l DC-OB33443F506F 000003 of 000013 16. On December 12 and 13, 2016, Sparks took the depositions of the Mayor and several other City of?cials in the aforementioned case of Rah}! Cay chardrz?ouw, purportedly for the purpose of eliciting facts related to the termination of Roby. However, as part of those depositions, Sparks elicited sworn testimony from the Mayor and City of?cials regarding the completely unrelated matter concerning the ?packets,? despite the fact that no action was or has been ?led on behalf of his client, Copeland. 17. On December 27, 2016, the Council enunciated that it had solicited offers from several attorney ?investigators,? but further announced that the investigation would be tabled and later considered by the new 2017?2018 City Council. 18. On January 2, 2017, new City Councilman Kelley declared his official address as 3208 Kings Court, Bardstown, Kentucky 40004, in an email reply to City Clerk, Barbara Bryant (hereinafter ?the City Clerk? or ?Bryant?). The required form for submission to the Kentucky Department of Local Government, pursuant to KRS also listed Councilman Kelley? 8 address as 3208 Kings Court, Bardstown, Kentucky 40004. 19. The 201742018 City Council voted to investigate the City of Bardstown under the' same aforementioned parameters on January 3, 2017. The Council voted Councilman Kelley as their official ?custodian of records? for purposes of the investigation. 20. Subsequently, the Council, through Kelley, entered into a contract hiring attorney Scott Crosbie (?Crosbie?) of the law ?rm of Mattmiller Crosbie in Lexington, Kentucky as their ?investigator.? 21. Upon information and belief, Crosbie is a long?time personal friend of Sparks, from their days at the University of Kentucky. Upon further information and belief, and through statements released to the media through the Council, Crosbie had already been in contact with Sparks prior to his employment by the Council. 000004 of 000018 22. Crosbie, and investigators hired by him, immediately began submitting voluminous amounts of Open Record Requests to City of?cials seeking documents far beyond the scope of the ?packets? being investigated, and further solicited statements from City employees and of?cials, again far beyond the scope of the municipal order authorized by the Council. 23. At no time did Crosbie, or the Council, provide written notice to the Mayor of the purpose or scope of the investigation undertaken, nor did they provide notice of ?any statement? solicited from City employees and of?cials. 24. Crosbie sent ?expanded investigation? Open Records Requests to City of?cials on January 22, 2017, prior to receiving authority from the Council to do so, or that having even been placed on the Council agenda. 25. Prior to the January 24, 2017 Council meeting, Kelley asked the City Clerk to place on the meeting agenda that the Council would go into ?closed session? to discuss the ?discipline or termination of a City employee or employees.? No other information was provided. 26. At the Council meeting on January 24, 2017, the Council moved to go into executive session without further comment or explanation other than a bare recitation of the statute, and then excluded the Mayor, City Clerk, and City Attorney from the executives session, going so far as to unplug the City recording devices from the chambers. Crosbie and others with him were brought into the executive session. 27. Following the executive session, the Council unanimously voted to ?expand the scope of the investigation? by Crosbie to ?other government matters,? and that the investigation conclude by April 15, 2017, unless further extended by the Council. 28. Kelley later told media that the real purpose of the executive session was to privately discuss the status of the investigation with their investigator, not to take any action concerning discipline or removal of a City employee, and that the focus of the investigation was the Mayor. 000005 of 000018 29. The subsequent amended contract between the Council, through Kelley, and Crosbie again referred to him as their ?investigator.? 30. On January 31, 2017, Mayor Royalty submitted an Open Records Request to Kelley as the records custodian for the Bardstown City Council, to provide certain documents and records in it or its investigator?s possession, including all documents and records utilized in its investigation. 31. In a document entitled ?Open Records Response? dated February 2, 2017, (received by Mayor Royalty on February 6, 2017), Councilman Kelley denied and/ or failed to provide the requested records and documents. 32. On February 15, 2017, the Mayor ?led a formal Complaint with the Council regarding the Council?s violation of the Kentucky Open TMeetings Act due to its actions in moving to executive session on January 24, 2017, without legal authority to do so. 33. On February 18, 2017, Councilman Kelley responded to the formal Complaint, arguing that the Council was exempt from the requirements of the Open Meetings law pursuant to KRS and and ?attorney-client privilege.? 34. On February 26, 2017, on behalf of the Council, Crosbie sent a letter directly to the Mayor, despite the Council?s knowledge that the Mayor was represented by counsel, requesting his ?voluntary participation in a fact-?nding interview? to be conducted by two former FBI agents. 35. Also on February 26, 2017, Crosbie sent similar letters to Clerk Bryant and other appointed of?cials with the City of Bardstown. 36. Counsel for the Mayor responded to the inquiry via letter on February 28, 2017 by telling Crosbie that the Mayor was willing to review and respond to written questions pursuant to the lawful procedure outlined in KRS 37. Dissatis?ed, Crosbie wrote counsel for the Mayor on March 1, 2017 that while the Mayor was not ?being required to do anything,? that ?should he choose not to participate, the 000006 of 000018 investigation?s ?ndings will be reported without his input.? Crosbie also noted that at that point, his of?ce had ?conducted over two dozen interviews? of witnesses. 38. Similarly, on March 1, 2017, Crosbie wrote to various City of?cials, whom had requested that any interviews be submitted by written questions pursuant to the legal procedure outlined in KRS that ?given the ?nancial, time, and logistical restraints of preparing the potential questions prior to your interview, this is not feasible,? that Crosbie?s of?ce had ?obtained 1000?s of documents and conducted over two dOZen interviews,? and further threatening that if they ?choose not to participate as requested, the investigation?s ?ndings will be reported without your input.? 39. On March 3, 2017, the Mayor sent Kelley another Open Records Request again requesting all of the documents and information received by the Council?s investigator, statements of witnesses, and records of communications between the investigator and Council, between Council members, and between Council members and/ or third persons. 40. On March 6, 2017, the Mayor, by and through counsel, appealed the denial of his January 31, 2017 Open Records Request to the Kentucky Attorney General?s Of?ce, and served all Council members. The Of?ce received the appeal on March 9, 2017 and required response by Kelley on or before lvlarch 15, 2017. 41. On March 7, 2017, Kelley denied the Mayor?s March 3, 2017 Open Records Requests, and stated that he was ?not the custodian of records of other council members.? 42. On March 8, 2017, having been denied by Kelley twice under the Open Records law, having been subject to violation of the Open Meetings law, and having not been provided material pursuant to the legal process outlined in KRS the Mayor sent an email records request directly to Crosbie as the Council?s hired investigator. 000007 of 000018 43. This time, Crosbie did respond to counsel for the lVIayor on March 9, 2017, inquiring about counsel?s capacity of representation and simultaneously denying the hilayors? requests, stating that he ?was retained by the Bardstown City Council to provide legal services,? that Mayor Royalty is requesting ?con?dential documents relating to our representation of the City Council,? that his ?law firm?s privileged communications and protected work product will not be provided,? and that Mayor Royalty?s request seeks information not subject to disclosure now or in the future.? 44. Furthermore, Crosbie stated that his ?internal investigative/ legal ?le containing preliminary drafts, witness notes, communications with private individuals, unsubstantiated information and similar information constituting my firm?s work product will not be produced.? 45. Crosbie made no effort to distinguish, in the records request, between material that was subject of his investigation and of public concern and thus subject to disclosure, and material that was not. instead, he asserted a blanket attorney?client privilege, despite that fact that he was hired as an ?investigator? for a public investigation. 46. On March 15, 2017, Kelley made his written response to the Of?ce regarding the appeal of the Mayor?s denial of the January 31, 2017 Open Records requests. In that response, among other things, Kelley stated ?it is now clear that Mayor Royalty is the focus of the Bardstown City Council investigation,? and stated that KRS 61.878(3) ?also applies.? Kelley had not cited that subsection earlier, and then stated that the Mayor had no right to any records related to the ongoing investigation of the Council. 47. On March 26, 2017, media reports circulated that indicated that Crosbie was prepared to reveal his ?final investigative report? earlier than expected and that same would be presented at the regular City Council meeting on March 28, 2017. It is unclear how the media allegedly obtained this information. 000008 of 000018 48. On March 27, 2017, Kelley requested that the City Clerk place on the agenda a motion to go into ?executive session? to consider what would ?likely? be the final report. Furthermore, the notice stated this time that the purpose of the executive session was to consider the Mayor for potential ?discipline and/ or removal.? 49. At the regular Council meeting on iviarch 28, 2017, the Council again moved to go to executive session to meet with Crosbie and to consider his report. The Council reported, after having come out of executive session, that ?no action was taken? in that executive session. 50. Subsequently, Crosbie was permitted to address the Council. Crosbie stated that he and his investigative team, consisting of other lawyers and 2 former FBI agents, ?had reviewed over 5,000 documents and conducted in excess of 35 interviews with witnesses? during his investigation, that took place over the course of ?nearly? of 3 months. 51. Crosbie circulated a 44 page investigative report to Council members (though not counsel for the Mayor), containing a zip drive that contained an additional 350+ pages of documents constituting over 88 different exhibits. In addition, the report outlined a. 17 different individual witnesses whom it was alleged provided information that was later disclosed in the report; b. Of these 17, six (6) of the witnesses providing pertinent information were Council members, including five (5) of the six (6) Council members (Kelley, Copeland, Heaton, Sheckles and \Villiams) currently sitting on the Council, and purporting to sit in judgment of the Mayor in this case; c. An unidenti?ed witness known only as d. ?Other confidential, background sources,? unidentified by Crosbie; 000009 of 000018 e. Less than three (3) of the 44 pages of material contained any information related to the original subject of the investigation the ?packets? left at Council chambers on November 2, 2016; f. The report contains no less than 72 conclusory statements manufactured as opinion by Crosbie himself, including all ten (10) summary statements, which form the basis of subsequent adopted allegations against the Mayor; g. The report contains nothing concerning the remainder of the 5,000 documents and dozens of witnesses interviewed by Crosbie; h. The report recommends several avenues of potential relief, including removal of the Mayor, criminal allegations of perjury, of?cial misconduct, and other items, and other potential civil and administrative sanctions. 52. The investigation and report by Crosbie was therefore not ?independent? in any respect, but instead was the result of a targeted and non?transparent civil representation of the Council members, including coordination with the news media and private attorneys. 53. Furthermore, the purported initial purpose of the investigation, the investigation of the ?packets,? appears to have been nothing more than a manufactured and coordinated subterfuge to politically have the Mayor removed from of?ce, to manufacture civil claims on behalf of Copeland, and to bolster civil claims on behalf of Roby. 54. Crosbie has been connected with political subterfuge before, including allegations of coordination of politically motivated informational attacks by a blogger against candidatejames Comer in the 2014 Republican gubernatorial primary campaign in support of candidate Hal Heiner, whose running mate was Crosbie?s wife. 55. Following the presentation of the report, the Council unanimously voted to: a. Adopt the report and its recommendations in its entirety, without discussion; 10 00001 0 of 000013 b. To schedule a hearing to hear evidence on the report and whether to remove the Mayor from office for ?misconduct in office,? pursuant to KRS c. Set that hearing date for W'ednesday, April 12, 2017 at 10:00 d. Hired Crosbie to present evidence on behalf of the Council as a de?cit! ?prosecutor? for the hearing, despite the fact that Crosbie is himself a witness in the proceeding. 56. At the time the Council set the hearing date, there was not even a Hearing Officer for the hearing, nor had they even con?rmed the availability of a venue to hold the hearing. 57. Despite their knowledge of the legal representation of the Mayor, neither Crosbie nor the Council made even the ?rst effort to contact counsel for the Mayor to discuss even his availability for the hearing date; 58. Despite the fact that the Council and Crosbie have had over 3 months, the use of multiple lawyers and 2 FBI investigator?s, by their own admission have reviewed over 5,000 documents, interviewed 35+ witnesses, several of whom are still unidentified, established a regular pattern of denying the Mayor the right to review even the first document or interview any investigation witnesses, have a pending Attorney General?s appeal, admitted themselves that it would be too onerous for them to send the Mayor written questions due to the volume of material they had, and the fact that there was no Hearing Officer, no ability to generate subpoenas or conduct even (it ?2272222225 discovery, the Council and Crosbie nevertheless have afforded the Mayor just two weeks to prepare for a removal hearing of a public of?cial voted into office by the electorate. 59. On March 31, 2017, the Mayor received a notice from the Office dated March 22, 2017 wherein the AG issued an Order compelling Kelley to turn over all documents and records from the Mayor?s January 31, 2017 Open Records Request for it; inspection, to assist them with their determination, which they declared would be prior to May 18, 2017. 60. On April 4, 2017, the Council unanimously voted to: 11 000011 of 000013 a. Retain former Circuit Judge Doughias George (?George?) to serve as Hearing Officer for the scheduled public hearing,- b. Hold the hearing in District Courtroom at the Nelson County Justice Center; C. To retain attorney Bruce Reynolds (?Reynolds?) to represent the City on any ?potential lawsuit? ?led in connection with the investigation/hearing. 60. Kelley reported at the meeting that he had had axpan?e contact with George, and that George had agreed to ?alter his calendar? in order to expedite the hearing. Kelley did not explain the substance of the remainder of his ex parte communications with George, or how he convinced George to alter his calendar. 61. Reynolds was the former City Attorney for the City of Bardstown, including at times contained in Crosbie?s report, and therefore is a witness to certain incidents contained in the report?s allegations, in particular, matters involving Councilwoman Copeland, matters in which Reynolds even provided advice to lVlayor Royalty. 62. Reynolds was also terminated as City Attorney by Mayor Royalty. 63. Again, counsel for the Mayor was not consulted about the choice of Hearing Of?cer, not has counsel been contacted as of this date by the Hearing Officer, or anyone else, or advised of any procedure regarding how and where to ?le pleadings, obtain subpoenas, etc. PETITION FOR DECLARATION OF RIGHTS 60. The Plaintiff reiterates and incorporates the allegations contained in averments one (1) through ?fty?nine (59) as if fully set out. 61. As a citizen and as a private of?cial holding office pursuant to KRS 418.045, Mayor Royalty is entitled to due process of law, equal protection of the laws, and to a full and non-arbitrary public hearing from a fair and impartial arbiter of fact. 12 000012 of 000018 62. KRS states that the Mayor is entitled to a full public hearing on any allegation of misconduct in of?ce, with the City Council to serve as the arbiter of fact. 63. However, in this case, the arbiter of fact, the Council, themselves are the individuals who have levied the accusations against the Mayor, and therefore under the statute will sit in judgment of the Mayor on allegations they themselves have unanimously made. 64. hiloteovet, in this case the Council members themselves constitute the majority of the witnesses contained in the investigative report making the allegations, such that they should be subject to compelled subpoena at the hearing, cross-examination, and subject to the rule regarding the separation of witnesses. 65. Accordingly, there is overwhelming evidence in this matter that arbiters of fact, the Council, cannot possibly be ?fair and impartial? in this matter, and in fact, will be Witnesses called to testi rin the proceeding. 66. As such, KRS as applied in this case, is unconstitutional in that it deprives the Mayor due process of the laws in sitting for a public hearing on the merits, and the Mayor seeks this Court?s declaration accordingly. 67. Additionally, the Mayor seeks this Court?s declaration that the Council members are likely witnesses to the proceeding. 68. Furthermore, the Mayor?s primary witness in this case will be the investigator Scott Crosbie, whose actions in this case are inextricably intertwined with both the allegations made against the Mayor and the Mayor?s potential defenses. 69. Accordingly, the Mayor seeks this Court?s declaration that Crosbie is disquali?ed to act as representative counsel for the Council in this matter, and further that he be called as a witness in the proceeding. 13 000013 of 000018 70. Furthermore, the Hearing Of?cer in this matter, George, has had ex parte contact with Kelley in connection with this matter, of unknown substance. 71. The Mayor contends the better practice, and practice required by due process, is to appoint a fair and impartial Hearing Of?cer not potentially tainted by any ex parte communication, and that the Mayor had a right to be involved in that selection process. 72. Accordingly, the Mayor seeks a declaration by this Court that each side is afforded the right to recommend a Hearing Of?cer in this matter to preside over the proceeding, and that that process begin anew. 73. Furthermore, the counsel for the City Council, Reynolds, is a witness to the proceeding in that he had knowledge of matters contained in the report from his time period as City Attorney, including advice from time to time rendered to the Mayor, including over issues involving Copeland. In fact, the Mayor believes that Reynolds may have been one of the ?unidenti?ed individuals providing background information? contained in Crosbie?s report. 74. Accordingly, the Mayor seeks a declaration from this Court that Reynolds is disquali?ed as counsel for the City Council in this matter, that Reynolds is a witness in these proceedings, as having formerly provided legal advice directly to the Mayor involving conflicts identified in the report. 75. Furthermore, the Council has, on numerous occasions demonstrated a pattern of thwarting efforts by the Mayor to gain access to public information resulting from the investigation in an effort to defend him against the accusations. 76. In fact, the entire investigation, purportedly conducted under the auspices of KRS appears to have been a sham attempt, cloaked in the secrecy of alleged ?attorney?client privilege,? to conduct a 3 month discovery investigation to provide evidence to remove the Mayor 14 000014 of 000018 under KRS without any such charges having been levied against the Mayor during the period of the investigation, akin to ?pre-suit? discovery in a civil matter. 77. Indeed, in the course of what was labeled an ?investigation,? the Council and Crosbie violated the procedure outlined in KRS and in fact, began what was labeled as an ?expanded investigation,? before even being authorized to do so. 78. Furthermore, the Council and Crosbie violated the Kentucky Open Meetings Act, as well as the Kentucky Open Records Act on at least two (2) occasions, one of which is still pending before the AG. 79. The Mayor contends it is a violation of his fundamental right to due process of law and fundamental fairness in his entitlement to a fair and impartial public hearing, that the Council be permitted to utilize information obtained in violation of the law at that public hearing, and furthermore to obstruct his efforts at discovery over the course of 3 months and thousands of documents, only to schedule a public hearing in 2 weeks, knowing the Mayor cannot properly be defended in that time period. 80. Accordingly, the Mayor seeks a declaration of this Court that: a. The Council is prohibited from utilizing any documents or statements obtained in violation of the law; b. The Council is prohibited from conducting any public hearing until the Mayor has had sufficient time to conduct discovery and to prepare a sufficient defense to the allegations contained in the voluminous report. INJUNCT IVE RELIEF 81. The Plaintiff reiterates and incorporates the allegations contained in averments one (1) through eighty (80) as if fully set out. 82. The Mayor is a litigant with standing pursuant to CR 65.01, 83?. seq. 15 000015 of 000018 83. The City Council is attempting to proceed against the Mayor in such a manner that he would have no adequate remedy by way of appeal, namely, that the Mayor cannot possibly prepare for a public hearing involving such voluminous matters on such short notice on April 12, 2017, particularly when a Hearing Officer was just approved yesterday. 84. That, in the event the Mayor were removed following a public hearing, the effect of the removal is alleged to take place immediately. 85. That the Court?s have recognized that, even in the event of an subsequent appeal by the Mayor of such a removal, and ruling in his favor, that there is no adequate remedy on appeal if the time period for the Mayor?s term were to end during the pendency of appeal. 86. Accordingly, the Mayor seeks immediate temporary and permanent restraining order and/ or injunctive relief prohibiting the Bardstown City Council from conducting the public hearing called for by municipal order on hilarch 28, 2017 until the matters contained in this Petition are I resolved, including resolution of the constitutional question, resolution of the appointment of an impartial Hearing Of?cer, determination of questions regarding the qualification of lawyers, and resolution of the question regarding the compelled attendance of Council and lawyer witnesses heretofore mentioned, or, alternatively, directing that the public hearing be held at such time in the future as to afford the Mayor due process of the law in preparing for said heating and conducting his defense. COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 87. The Plaintiff reiterates and incorporates the allegations contained in averments one (1) through eighty-six (86) as if fully set out. 88. The actions of the Defendants, in violating the htfayor?s rights of due process of the law, in failing to follow specific procedural and statutory requirements for conducting the City 16 000016 of 000018 Council investigation, and in violating the Kentucky Open Meetings Act and Kentucky Open Records Act, have violated the Mayor?s civil rights. 89. Affording due process and following the law are ministerial actions. 90. Accordingly, the Council is liable in damages to the Mayor pursuant to 42 U.S.C. M983, tag? including recovery of his reasonable attorney fees, as well as punitive damages to prevent the Council, and those similarly situated, from engaging in such actions in the future. 91. Additionally, the Council is liable to the Mayor pursuant to KRS 446.010. 92. As discovery in these matters has been stymied by the Council and Crosbie, the Mayor speci?cally reserves the right to assert such additional civil claims, including compulsory claims, as may become apparent upon further discovery in this matter. WHEREFORE, the Plaintiff prays judgment as follows: 1. For a Declaration of Rights pursuant to KRS 418.040 as to the matters contained in this Petition, including, but not limited to, that KRS is unconstitutional; 2. For temporary and permanent injunctive relief pursuant to CR 65.01, including enjoining and/ or restraining the City Council from conducting the public hearing currently scheduled for April 12, 2017; 3. For his damages, in an amount to be determined at trial. 4. For punitive damages; 5. For a TRIAL BY on all issues so triable; 6. For any and all other and such relief as this Court may deem just and proper in the premises. 17 000017 of 000018 FULTON HUBBARD 8: HUBBARD 451 (3.9011 P. Floyd Jason P. Floyd John Douglas Hubbard 117 E. Stephen Foster Ave. P.O. Box 88 Bardstown, KY 40004-0088 (502) 348-6457 Cozuml?v' #13 Piaz'm'gf 18 000018 of 000018