If you read our Jim King story on July 22nd, you’re aware that Ed Springston and his ghost writing attorney pal (a guy, his friends tell us, who was allegedly rejected by Katie a couple years ago and hasn’t been able to deal with it) have it out for King over an alleged campaign finance violation. Despite, of course, the fact that the Kentucky Registry of Election Finance doesn’t regulate personal finances.

Springston’s attorney pal (he’s the guy behind the Katie King attack mailers last year) has since left dozens upon dozens of comments making ominous threats to take Jim King to court and has gone so far as to suggest (now that his argument is moot) that KREF members should be disqualified from addressing complaints against King because they’re biased.  And that we’re on the take from King (what short memories they have).

Funny stuff.

Well, King’s legal team has responded to the KREF and point out what most campaign finance experts we’ve spoken with consider obvious. Let’s dig in to the latest brief filed on July 27th.

Complainant’s motion to disqualify the members of the Registry must be denied for three separate reasons: (1) Complainant is not a party to this investigation and has no standing to make the motion for disqualification; (2) KRS 13B.020 expressly exempts the Kentucky Registry of Election Finance from the provisions of Chapter 13B, the statute on which the motion is predicated; and (3) the factual and legal bases of the motion are completely without merit.

1. Complainant has no standing because he is not a party to this investigation.

This is not a civil litigation between two litigants. Instead, this is a law enforcement proceeding by the Registry pursuant to its statutory authority to investigate, conciliate and prosecute alleged violations of campaign finance law…

While Mr. Springston precipitated the Registry’s investigation into this matter by filing a complaint with the Registry pursuant to KRS 121.140(1) and 32 KAR 2:030, he has never been a party to this investigation. Like a prosecutor giving information to the complaining witness in a criminal investigation, the Registry’s General Counsel may choose to give him information from time to time as a matter of courtesy, but has has no statutory (or other) right to the status of a party in this matter. This investigation is the province of the General Counsel, and action upon her recommendation is the province of the Registry members. Mr. Springston is not a “party” to either phase of this proceeding.

Mr. Springston attempts to avoid this glaring problem by alleging in footnote 3 to his motion that the Registry’s general counsel “conferred intervenor status” upon him, referencing his Exhibit B. Aside from the fact that the Registry staff does not have the statutory authority to grant “intervenor” status, Complainant’s Exhibit B is actually a letter from Emily Dennis, General Counsel for the Registry, informing Complainant that his Request to Conslidate Findings of Fact and Motion to Compel were not authorized by the statutes and regulations of the Registry and were therefore denied.

The King response goes on to detail two other reasons Springston’s complaint should be ditched.

Read the rest, along with some funny bits, after the jump…

2. KRS 13B.020 exempts the Registry from the provisions of Chapter 13B.

Complainant’s alleged statutory basis for his motion in KRS 13B.040(2), which states that any “party” to a case before an agency may request the disqualification of a “hearing officer” by filing an affidavit stating the grounds upon which he claims that a fair and impartial hearing cannot be accorded. But KRS Chapter 13B does not apply to campaign finance hearings conducted by the Registry. In fact, KRS 13B.020(2)(f) expressly states that the provisions of Chapter 13 do not apply to the Registry of Election Finance and campaign finance hearings conducted pursuant to KRS Chapter 121…

3. Complainant’s underlying claims are without merit.

The entire basis of Mr. Springston’s motion for disqualification of all 7 members of the Registry is the spurious contention that the Registry members are all “likely to be a material witness for Respondents in the proceeding.” Complainant’s argument is simply untrue. Even if this matter is not resolved with a conciliation agreement, not one member of the Registry would be a witness for the Respondents at any hearing pursuant to KRS 121.140(4).

-SNIP-

KRS 501.070(3)(d) expressly provides that an individual may rely upon an interpretation of a statute received from the agency “with responsibility for the interpretation, administration or enforcement of the law defining the offense,” even if the advice was mistaken.

The funniest bits of the brief:

Complainant also makes the contradictory argument that the Registry must disqualify itself because “it’s impartiality might reasonably be questioned on the basis of appearance of impropriety.” Complainant appears to argue that Ms. Hines’ statement in her July 21 e-mail was “made with actual authority to bind the Registry…”

-SNIP-

Complainant essentially argues that in promulgating a regulation, an agency has prejudged the issue, and is disqualified from ever investigating or adjudicating a case involving its own regulations. Complainant’s argument ignores basic principles of administrative law.

Complainant’s remaining arguments are based upon complete misstatements of fact and merit no further discussion. Because Complainant’s underlying claims are without merit, his motion must be denied.

Feel free to click here (Warning: PDF Link) to read the entire document.

Springston’s crew will attempt to revise campaign finance history and law with another 80-page brief in 3, 2…