COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY

LEWIS CIRCUIT COURT

24-CI-00022
Electronically Filed
ERIC C. DETERS PETITIONER
v.
THOMAS H. MASSIE, et. al. RESPONDENTS
MOTION OF THOMAS H. MASSIE TO SUMMARILY ADJUDICATE HIS BONA
FIDES PURSUANT TO KRS 118.176, WITH THE AFFIDAVIT OF THEODORE
ROBERTS ATTACHED
Respondent, Thomas H. Massie (hereinafter “Congressman Massie”), requests that this

Court summarily determine, pursuant to the requirements of KRS 118.176, the bona fides of

Congressman Massie and his petition and determine that his petition is valid and that he is a bona

fide candidate. There are no facts in dispute, and the law is clear on this matter. A

Memorandum in Support is attached hereto.

Respectfully submitted,

/s/Christopher Wiest____________ /s/Thomas B. Bruns_________________

Christopher Wiest (KBA 90725) Thomas B. Bruns (KY 84985)
Chris Wiest, Atty at Law, PLLC Bruns Connell Vollmar & Armstrong
50 E. Rivercenter Blvd, Ste. 1280 4555 Lake Forrest Drive, Suite 330
Covington, KY 41017 Cincinnati, Ohio 45242
513/257-1895 (c) Tel.: 513/312-9890
chris@cwiestlaw.com tbruns@bcvalaw.com
Attorneys for Respondent, Thomas Massie
NOTICE OF MOTION

Please take notice that the foregoing motion shall be heard on Friday, March 1, 2024, at

the Lewis County Courthouse, Lewis County Justice Center, 94 Second St., Vanceburg, KY

41179, at 1:00 p.m. before Hon. Brian McCloud.

/s/Christopher Wiest____________

1
 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I certify that I have served a copy of the foregoing upon the Petitioner, and upon the other named

Defendants, by ordinary mail, this 26 day of February, 2024, and upon Hon. Brian McCloud, 101

Harrison Street, Greenup County Courthouse Annex, Greenup, Kentucky 41144

/s/Christopher Wiest____________

MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT

I. FACTS

Thomas Massie is the incumbent Congressman for Kentucky’s Fourth Congressional

District. On December 18, 2023, he filed for re-election, through submission of a notification

and declaration form. (Petition, Exhibit 2). He resides in Lewis County, Kentucky, and is and

has been registered Republican. Id. His signatures were witnessed by Cold Spring, Kentucky,

Mayor Penque, and Theodore J. Roberts (“Roberts”). Id. Mr. Roberts listed his address on that

petition as 8062 East Bend Rd., Burlington, KY 41005. Id.

Petitioner, who has lost his law license in three states, with a laundry list of misconduct

before courts and multiple disciplinary decisions directed at Petitioner’s dishonest conduct by the

Kentucky Supreme Court,1 as well as a laundry list of sanctions imposed by numerous courts for

1
Ky. Bar Ass'n v. Deters, 360 S.W.3d 224 (Ky. 2012) (license suspended for making false
statements and allegations about a judge, making false statements and then extorting potential
clients to try to claim a piece of a legal fee he was not entitled to, and also stealing a retainer
from a client by failing to refund it when due);

Ky. Bar Ass'n v. Deters, 406 S.W.3d 812 (Ky. 2013) (more false statements in connection with
legal pleadings, as well as filing frivolous and harassing pleadings, ultimately resulting in
disciplinary charges and a Rule 11 Motion being granted against him; and making false
statements in connection with a libel suit he filed against Commonwealth Attorney Rob
Sanders); (cont’d)

2
frivolous or malicious filings,2 engages in yet more misconduct. This time, he brings a frivolous

and malicious suit claiming that the signature of one of Congressman Massie signers’, Mr.

Roberts, was somehow invalid, because Petitioner falsely claims that Mr. Roberts listing of his

legal permanent residence at 8062 East Bend Rd., Burlington, KY 41005 was somehow

improper.

Start the analysis here: Petitioner acknowledges that Mr. Roberts voting address and

driver’s license lists 8062 East Bend Rd., Burlington, KY 41005. (Petition at ¶12). He

acknowledges that the home at 8062 East Bend Rd., Burlington, KY 41005 burned down in a fire

in May, 2023, and was then rebuilt. (Petition at ¶¶ 7, 10, 20). He acknowledges that Roberts has

only voted using the 8062 East Bend Rd., Burlington, KY 41005 address. (Petition at ¶14). As

we explain below, these allegations alone are sufficient to conclusively prove, as clearly

established under longstanding Kentucky law, that Mr. Roberts did not lose his permanent legal

residence merely because of a house fire. But before we address the law, let us turn to the facts.

Ky. Bar Ass'n v. Deters, 406 S.W.3d 812 (Ky. 2013);

Ky. Bar Ass'n v. Deters, 465 S.W.3d 30 (Ky. 2015) (license suspension “regarding Deters's
frivolous complaints and the convoluted, nearly subversive manner in which Deters managed the
claims.”);

Deters v. Ky. Bar Ass'n, 484 S.W.3d 299 (Ky. 2016) (disciplinary proceedings, for improperly
keeping a retainer again, and then, when the clients sought to report Plaintiff to the bar, he
threatened to sue them for libel, as well as ripping off another client and refusing to refund the
funds paid to him);

Deters v. Ky. Bar Ass'n, 627 S.W.3d 917, 924 (Ky. 2021) (outlining additional misconduct,
including deception, lies and misrepresentations, and concluding “[t]he record discloses a
notorious propensity to file malicious or frivolous lawsuits,” and “[a]s we understand Deters'
concept of the practice of law, no Rules of Professional Responsibility, no statute, no case law
bind him.”)
2
Deters v. Davis, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 63340 (EDKY 2011) (imposing Rule 11 sanctions for
filing pleadings without legal research); Deters v. Hammer, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 30964
(SDOH 2011) (same); Scott v. Sanders, 789 F. Supp. 2d 773 (EDKY 2011) (same);
Deters v. Schweikert, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 90724 (SDOH 2019).
3
 Mr. Roberts has submitted an affidavit, the contents of which are not actually disputed in

this matter, as they cannot be disputed. Mr. Roberts testifies that he is a legal permanent resident

of 8062 East Bend Rd., Burlington, KY 41005. (Affidavit Roberts at ¶1). He has been a

registered Republican in Kentucky’s Fourth Congressional District (and Kentucky House District

66) since 2017. (Affidavit Roberts at ¶¶ 2, 6).

In August, 2020, Roberts moved to 8062 East Bend Rd., Burlington, KY 41005, which

has been Roberts’ legal permanent residence since that date. (Affidavit Roberts at ¶3). Roberts’

grandmother, Edith Jenkins, and step-grandfather, Glen Thomason, own that property, which is

an approximate 3.37 acre parcel of property. Id. The property has a home, garage, and barn.

Again, Roberts has resided there with Edith and Glen since moving there. Id.

Since August, 2020, Roberts has had no intentions of establishing any permanent or legal

residence anywhere other than 8062 East Bend Rd., Burlington, KY 41005. (Affidavit Roberts

at ¶4). Roberts’ driver’s license, vehicle registration, and concealed carry address all reflect

8062 East Bend Rd., Burlington, KY 41005 as his residence. (Affidavit Roberts at ¶¶ 5-6).

Roberts’ vehicle is insured at that address. Id. at ¶7.

On May 2, 2023, the house at 8062 East Bend Rd., Burlington, KY 41005, was destroyed

in a fire. (Affidavit Roberts at ¶ 8). That night, Roberts made a post on his “X,” (formerly

twitter) announcing the occurrence of this fire and Roberts’ intent to rebuild the house.

(Affidavit Roberts at ¶ 9). A true and accurate copy of that post is attached to Roberts’ affidavit

as Exhibit 4. Id. As the tweet/post reflects, Roberts announced his and his grandparents’

intention to rebuild. Id. Similarly, Roberts made a post on Facebook that same night, a true and

accurate copy of which is attached as Exhibit 5. Id. It also documented that he and his

grandparents would rebuild the house. Id.

4
 After the fire, Roberts (i) continued to receive and check mail at 8062 East Bend Rd.,

Burlington, KY 41005; (ii) continued to be registered to vote at 8062 East Bend Rd., Burlington,

KY 41005; (iii) continued to keep his vehicle registration at 8062 East Bend Rd., Burlington, KY

41005; (iv) continued to maintain his driver’s license at 8062 East Bend Rd., Burlington, KY

41005; (v) continued to keep and maintain his animals in the garage and barn at 8062 East Bend

Rd., Burlington, KY 41005, that consisted of two cats, two horses, three chickens, and three

birds; and (vi) continued to keep that personal property not lost in the fire in the garage at 8062

East Bend Rd., Burlington, KY 41005, to include photographs, horse tools and materials, family

heirlooms, and memorabilia. (Affidavit Roberts at ¶ 11). Roberts did all of these things because

he and his grandparents intended to (and did) move back in as soon as the home was rebuilt. Id.

During the reconstruction process, Roberts stayed at 8062 East Bend Rd., Burlington, KY

41005 property overnight three or four nights, sleeping in the barn. (Affidavit Roberts at ¶ 12).

From the date of the fire, until the home’s re-construction was completed, Roberts went

back home to 8062 East Bend Rd., Burlington, KY 41005 almost every day, save when he was

temporarily out of town (for instance, when he took the Ohio Bar examination for two days out

of town in July of 2023, and when he had a vacation in Florida in August, 2023 following the bar

examination). (Affidavit Roberts at ¶ 13). He always returned home because he checked mail,

fed the animals, and wanted to ensure the continued security of the personal property, and,

during reconstruction, wanted to check on progress. Id. He did all of these things because he

intended to (and did) move back in as soon as the home was rebuilt. Id.

Roberts and his grandparents made a claim on their homeowner’s insurance for the home

at 8062 East Bend Rd., Burlington, KY 41005, Allstate, on the evening of May 2, 2023,

following the fire. (Affidavit Roberts at ¶ 14). On May 3, 2023, Roberts and his grandparents

5
had a meeting with Allstate, and were asked whether they wanted to take a payout and move

elsewhere, or to rebuild, and they indicated, at that meeting, that they wanted to rebuild their

home at 8062 East Bend Rd., Burlington, KY 41005. (Affidavit Roberts at ¶ 15).

Allstate then provided the amount the insurer would pay for the reconstruction of the

home at 8062 East Bend Rd., Burlington, KY 41005, sometime in mid to late May, 2023.

(Affidavit Roberts at ¶ 16). Roberts and his grandparents then shopped homebuilders in late

May to early June, 2023. (Affidavit Roberts at ¶ 17). After scheduling a meeting on June 12,

2023, Roberts and his grandparents then met on June 15, 2023, with Schumacher Homes, Inc., to

discuss options and contracting to rebuild the home at 8062 East Bend Rd., Burlington, KY

41005. (Affidavit Roberts at ¶ 18). A true and accurate copy of an email confirming that

meeting to discuss home construction is attached as Exhibit 6 to Roberts’ affidavit. Id. This

contracting and options process took several weeks to discuss and work through. (Affidavit

Roberts at ¶ 19).

Then, on July 18, 2023, Roberts and his grandmother contracted with Schumacher

Homes, Inc. to rebuild their home at 8062 East Bend Rd., Burlington, KY 41005. (Affidavit

Roberts at ¶ 20). A true and accurate copy of that contract is attached at Exhibit 7 to his

affidavit. Id.

After contracting, it took Schumacher Homes, Inc. a couple months to mobilize (and for

the home rebuild project to get on their schedule), and it began actual reconstruction of the home

at 8062 East Bend Rd., Burlington, KY 41005 on September 14, 2023. (Affidavit Roberts at ¶

21). A copy of a Facebook post Roberts made, with a picture he took that depicted the start of

that construction, is attached at Exhibit 8 to his affidavit. Id.

6
 In early November, 2023, Schumacher Homes, Inc. substantially completed construction

of the home at 8062 East Bend Rd., Burlington, KY 41005, with the exception of the siding.

(Affidavit Roberts at ¶ 23). By early December, 2023, the siding was completed and the home

was substantially completed. (Affidavit Roberts at ¶ 24). Punch-list items with Schumacher

Homes, Inc. were conducted in late mid to late December, 2023, and the final occupancy permit

was issued January, 2024. (Affidavit Roberts at ¶ 25).

Roberts was at the 8062 East Bend Rd., Burlington, KY 41005 property every single day

in November, December, 2023 and January, 2024, to check mail, to feed the animals, to check on

construction progress, and to ensure that heat was provided to the residence during cold weather.

(Affidavit Roberts at ¶ 26). Roberts and his grandparents moved back into their home at 8062

East Bend Rd., Burlington, KY 41005 on January 11, 2024, which was as soon as we legally

could do so. (Affidavit Roberts at ¶ 27).

Immediately after the fire, Roberts temporarily stayed with his mother, at 13391 U.S.

Highway 42, Walton Kentucky, from May 2, 2023 through June 18, 2023. (Affidavit Roberts at

¶ 28). Roberts had no intention to make this his permanent address, did not have mail forwarded

there, did not change his voter registration or vehicle registration, and merely temporarily stayed

there to arrange reconstruction of the home at 8062 East Bend Rd., Burlington, KY 41005. Id.

From June 18, 2023 through January 10, 2024, Roberts temporarily stayed at 3059 Torrid

Street, in Burlington, Kentucky (also in the Fourth Congressional District and 66 th Kentucky

House District). (Affidavit Roberts at ¶ 29). This temporary living situation was set up and paid

for by Allstate, and its agent, CRS, during reconstruction. Id. A true and accurate copy of

communications confirming this is attached at Exhibit 10 to his affidavit. Id. As those

communications indicate, the situation was temporary, and solely for purposes of providing

7
temporary housing during reconstruction of the home at 8062 East Bend Rd., Burlington, KY

41005. Id. The insurer estimated an outside date of April, 2024, for the reconstruction process,

but it was completed before then. Id. Roberts had no intention to make the Torrid Street address

his permanent address, did not have mail forwarded there, did not change his voter registration or

vehicle registration, and merely temporarily stayed there during the pendency of reconstruction

of the home at 8062 East Bend Rd., Burlington, KY 41005. Id.

From the date of the fire, on May 2, 2023, until the home was reconstructed, Roberts had

and maintained the intention to return and resume living at 8062 East Bend Rd., Burlington, KY

41005 as soon as he and his grandparents could get the home rebuilt, which reconstruction they

immediately and diligently pursued. (Affidavit Roberts at ¶ 30). The temporary dislocation due

to the fire was just that: temporary, and only for the period necessary to reconstruct their home at

8062 East Bend Rd., Burlington, KY 41005. Id.

Thus, Roberts legal residence, throughout 2023 and 2024, was 8062 East Bend Rd.,

Burlington, KY 41005. (Affidavit Roberts at ¶ 31).

Prior to signing his paperwork to run for office for Kentucky House District 66, and prior

to Roberts signing Congressman Massie’s paperwork as a witness, Roberts communicated with

the Kentucky Secretary of State’s Office. (Affidavit Roberts at ¶ 32). They provided the advice

that the address to be listed is the permanent legal residence address, and not any temporary

address. Id. Roberts followed the Office of the Secretary of State’s advice in completing both

forms. Id.

II. LAW AND ARGUMENT

A. Standard

8
 Pursuant to KRS 118.176(3), “[i]n any action or proceeding under this section the burden

of proof as to the bona fides of a candidate shall be on the person challenging the bona fides of a

candidate.” The action is heard by way of “summary proceedings” and on motion. KRS

118.176(1). In fact, the statute requires that the action be decided “summarily and without

delay.” Id. And an evidentiary hearing is discretionary. Id. (“[p]roof may be heard orally…”).

The action is tried to the court, without a jury. Id.; see, also, KRS 118.176(5).

B. Roberts signature is not invalid because it is undisputed that he is a registered

Republican located in the Fourth Congressional District
KRS 118.125 governs the requirements to be placed on a primary ballot. In relevant part,

that statute states:

(1) … any person who is qualified under the provisions of KRS 116.055 to vote in any
primary for the candidates for nomination by the party at whose hands he or she seeks the
nomination, shall have his or her name printed on the official ballot of his or her party for
an office to which he is eligible in that primary, upon filing, with the Secretary of State or
county clerk, as appropriate, at the proper time, a notification and declaration.
(2) The notification and declaration shall be in the form prescribed by the State Board of
Elections. It shall be signed by the candidate and by not less than two (2) registered
voters of the same party from the district or jurisdiction from which the candidate seeks
nomination. Signatures for nomination papers shall not be affixed on the document to be
filed prior to the first Wednesday after the first Monday in November of the year
preceding the year in which the office will appear on the ballot. The notification and
declaration for a candidate shall include the following oath:
“For the purpose of having my name placed on the official primary election ballot as a
candidate for nomination by the Party, I, - - - - - - - - - - - -(name in full as desired on the
ballot as provided in KRS 118.129), do solemnly swear that my residence address is
(street, route, highway, city if applicable, county, state, and zip code), that my mailing
address, if different, is (post office address), and that I am a registered -(party) voter in
precinct; that I believe in the principles of the Party, and intend to support its principles
and policies; that I meet all the statutory and constitutional qualifications for the office
which I am seeking; that if nominated as a candidate of such party at the ensuing election
I will accept the nomination and not withdraw for reasons other than those stated in KRS
118.105(3); that I will not knowingly violate any election law or any law relating to
corrupt and fraudulent practice in campaigns or elections in this state, and if finally
elected I will qualify for the office.”

9
 The declaration shall be subscribed and sworn to before an officer authorized to
administer an oath by the candidate and by the two (2) voters making the declaration and
signing the candidate’s petition for office.

KRS 118.125 is clear that what is required of a witness signature is that the witnesses (i)

be from the same district or jurisdiction from which the candidate seeks nomination; (ii) that the

signatures be completed after the first Wednesday after the first Monday in November in the year

prior to the election; and (iii) that the signature of the witness be notarized.

Here, there is no question but that Mr. Roberts was a resident of the Fourth Congressional

District (regardless of whether one uses the 8062 East Bend address or the temporary Torrid

Street address), that the signatures were affixed and sworn to within the appropriate window, and

were appropriately notarized.

C. Roberts never lost his permanent legal residence at 8062 East Bend Road,
Burlington, Kentucky, and published and binding case law is clear that
temporary dislocation due to a fire and the time to rebuild a home does not
change one’s legal residence

Several Kentucky cases, some going back over 100 years, outline the test to be applied,

and all make clear that Mr. Roberts never lost his permanent legal residence due to the temporary

dislocation as a result of a fire.

Perhaps most recently is the Kentucky Supreme Court’s decision in Mobley v. Armstrong,

978 S.W.2d 307, 310-311 (1998). There, the Court explained that “we must evaluate both

actions and intent when determining residency because neither is exclusively controlling.” citing

Semple v. Commonwealth, Ky., 181 Ky. 675, 205 S.W. 789, 791 (1918). “If someone's actions

conclusively show he resides in one place, his intention to live in another place may not override

these facts.” Id. (emphasis added). The conclusive showing that is required is, in this case, an

insurmountable hurdle for Petitioner.

10
 In Mobley, the Court found that the candidate did not establish his residency in Jefferson

County, because: “(1) appellant did not change his voter's registration back to Jefferson County

[from Trimble County] until July 23, 1997 [for a 1998 election with a two year residency

requirement]; (2) appellant's driver's license is still issued from Trimble County; (3) one of

appellant's automobile's is titled in Trimble County; (4) appellant's tax records indicate his home

address is in Trimble County; (5) appellant made his permanent home in Trimble County, only

sleeping in Jefferson County occasionally and then in a hotel or at his place of business; and (6)

appellant kept all of his personalty which was not directly related to his profession in Trimble,

not Jefferson County.” Id. at 311.

Here, of course, (1) Mr. Roberts’ voter registration has always been maintained in

Kentucky at 8062 East Bend Rd., Burlington, KY 41005 and he voted from that address, (2) Mr.

Roberts’ driver’s license has always been maintained at 8062 East Bend Rd., Burlington, KY

41005, (3) his automobile has always been registered at 8062 East Bend Rd., Burlington, KY

41005, and (4) his personal property, to include his animals, has always been maintained at 8062

East Bend Rd., Burlington, KY 41005. Under Mobley, the analysis is clear: his legal residence

for the past three years is at 8062 East Bend Rd., Burlington, KY 41005.

An older case, Semple v. Commonwealth, 181 Ky. 675, 680-681 (1918), had several other

observations relevant here:

All authorities agree that one may not have a legal residence in two or more jurisdictions
at the same time, although he may have a number of actual places of residence coexisting
in different localities. There is also another well founded rule that when one acquires a
domicile it cannot be changed without the acquisition of another domicile, which, as
seen, must be done by acts, conduct and intention.

Mere change of residence is not of itself proof of a change of domicile unless

accompanied by an intention, express or implied, to abandon the old domicile and acquire
a new one. Within the principle of law declared in the decisions, a person may reside for
pleasure or health in one place without forfeiting or surrendering his domicile or legal

11
 residence in another, if he so intends. It is not residence alone, but it is the intention of the
person, expressed or implied from the facts in the evidence, conjoined with residence,
that determines domicile. Every person sui juris and capable of controlling his personal
movements may change his domicile at pleasure, but a change of domicile involves
intention as the dominant factor. Id.

Other cases are in accord: Baker v. Baker, Eccles & Co., 162 Ky. 683 (1915) (court

concluding residency established by someone voting in a particular location); Graves' Adm'r v.

Georgetown, 154 Ky. 207 (1913) (where someone votes is substantial evidence of residency);

Wheeler v. Burgess, 263 Ky. 693 (1936) (notwithstanding a move to France and remaining there

for six years, keeping property in Kentucky and an intention to return kept the domicile -- or

legal residence -- in Kentucky); Dickey v. Bagby, 574 S.W.2d 922, 923 (1978) (notwithstanding

multiple moves around the United States in connection with federal employment, person

remained Kentucky resident, concluding that a person "may have many residences but in the

absence of showing an intention of abandoning his Kentucky citizenship, his state of origin, he

will be deemed a Kentucky citizen for the purpose of qualifying for office in that state").

“[A] change in legal residence or domicile requires a physical act coupled with the intent

to abandon the domicile previously established.” Hunter v. Mena, 302 S.W.3d 93, 96 (Ky. App.

2010). A person may have more than one place of residence at any given time and maintain a

permanent place of residence even though he or she may live elsewhere temporarily. Cf. Hite's

Admr. v. Hite's Admr, 265 Ky. 786, 97 S.W.2d 811 (1936). Indeed, “'[i]ntention is the dominant

factor in determining' the question of domicile.” 97 S.W.2d 811 at 813. “As indicated in those

authorities, one may have a number of places of abode which he may call his home or his

residence, as the latter term is often used, but he can have but one domicile, which, when once

acquired, continues until changed in a legal manner, as by abandoning it and taking up another

with the intention to make it permanent for an indefinite time.” Id.

12
 "There is a presumption that an established domicile continues until another is acquired

by actual residence there with the intention of abandoning the former one." Burr's Adm'r v.

Hatter, 240 Ky. 721, 725, 43 S.W.2d 26, 27 (Ky. App. 1931).

Case law is clear that temporary dislocation does not permit someone to vote anywhere

other than the legal domicile. Matney v. Elswick, 242 Ky. 183, 45 S.W.2d 1046 (Ky. App.

1932). "If he actually lives in one district, he cannot vote in another, unless he resides in the

former merely for a temporary purpose." 242 Ky. at 184; 45 S.W.2d at 1047.

Most fatal to Petitioner, however, are two cases that deal with dislocations due to fires

burning a residence. First, Thompson v. Emmert, 242 Ky. 415, 46 S.W.2d 502 (Ky.

1932). There, the Court determined that “[i]f an absence depends upon the completion of some

temporary task, or upon the discharge of some duty of a temporary nature, the time fixed for a

return to the domicile is sufficiently definite.” 242 Ky. 415 at 417, 46 S.W.2d at 503. “John

Thompson and wife had lived in the Rush Point district, but had moved away to make a crop on

a rented farm, intending to return to their home when the crop was gathered.” Id. “During the

temporary absence, the house where they formerly lived was destroyed by fire.” Id. “The

testimony tends to show that the place where the house burnt is their permanent home, and that it

is their present purpose to rebuild the house and move into it.” 242 Ky. 415 at 418, 46 S.W.2d

at 503. The Court was clear that temporary dislocation due to a fire was not sufficient to deprive

the person of legal residence.

Similarly, in Everman v. Thomas, 303 Ky. 156, 171-172, 197 S.W.2d 58, 67 (Ky. App.

1946), Kentucky’s highest court reversed a circuit court that disqualified a candidate whose

home had burned. That is because of testimony from the candidate that “he had always had the

intent and purpose of keeping his original voting place and of rebuilding his home when

13
conditions permitted.” Id. And, again, Kentucky’s highest Court ruled that temporary loss of the

home, and dislocation elsewhere did not change legal residence based on that testimony. Id.

Here, Roberts’ statement on the petition that his residence was 8062 East Bend Rd.,

Burlington, KY was truthful – that was his legal residence – and he did not lose his legal

residence merely because he suffered a tragic fire, where he immediately took steps to rebuild

the residence, and temporarily stayed elsewhere while the home was rebuilt.

Thus, Petitioner’s petition is patently frivolous and malicious. We will address that

separately by way of a motion for sanctions.

III. CONCLUSION

Respondent, Thomas Massie, asks that the Court adjudicate, summarily, as required by

statute, that he is a bona fide candidate.

Respectfully submitted,

/s/Christopher Wiest____________ /s/Thomas B. Bruns_________________

Christopher Wiest (KBA 90725)
Chris Wiest, Atty at Law, PLLC
50 E. Rivercenter Blvd, Ste. 1280
Covington, KY 41017
513/257-1895 (c)
chris@cwiestlaw.com
Attorneys for Respondent, Thomas Massie
Thomas B. Bruns (KY 84985)
Bruns Connell Vollmar & Armstrong
4555 Lake Forrest Drive, Suite 330
Cincinnati, Ohio 45242
Tel.: 513/312-9890
tbruns@bcvalaw.com

14
 COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY
LEWIS CIRCUIT COURT
24-CI-00022
Electronically Filed
ERIC C. DETERS PETITIONER
v.
THOMAS H. MASSIE, et. al. RESPONDENTS
ORDER GRANTING THOMAS H. MASSIE’S MOTION TO SUMMARILY
ADJUDICATE BONA FIDES
This order adjudicates Petitioner’s action under KRS 118.176, challenging the bona fides

of Thomas H. Massie. Pursuant to KRS 118.176(3), “[i]n any action or proceeding under this

section the burden of proof as to the bona fides of a candidate shall be on the person challenging

the bona fides of a candidate.” The action is heard by way of “summary proceedings” and on

motion. KRS 118.176(1). In fact, the statute requires that the action be decided “summarily and

without delay.” Id. And an evidentiary hearing is discretionary. Id. (“[p]roof may be heard

orally…”). The action is tried to the court, without a jury. Id.; see, also, KRS 118.176(5).

The Court finds that an evidentiary hearing is unnecessary, in light of the uncontested

evidentiary record here.

I. Facts

Petitioner acknowledges that Mr. Roberts voting address and drivers license lists 8062

East Bend Rd., Burlington, KY 41005 (the “8062 Address”). (Petition at ¶12; Answer).

Petitioner acknowledges that the home at the 8062 Address burned down in a fire in May, 2023,

and was then rebuilt. (Petition at ¶¶ 7, 10, 20; Answer). Petitioner acknowledges that Roberts

has only voted using at the 8062 Address. (Petition at ¶14; Answer).

Roberts affidavit adds detail to the allegations: Since August, 2020, Roberts has

maintained his drivers license, voter registration, concealed carry license, vehicle registration,

has paid taxes on his vehicle at that address, and, more generally, his permanent legal residence,

1
at or from the 8062 Address. (Affidavit Roberts at ¶¶ 1-3). Roberts is a registered Republican,

and has repeatedly voted at the 8062 Address. Id. The 8062 Address is owned by Roberts’

grandmother and step-grandfather, and has been so-owned by them since at least 2020 to the

present. Id. at ¶3. The property has a home, garage, and barn. Id.

Since August, 2020, Roberts has had no intentions of establishing any permanent or legal

residence anywhere other than the 8062 Address. (Affidavit Roberts at ¶4).

On May 2, 2023, the house at the 8062 Address, was destroyed in a fire. (Affidavit

Roberts at ¶ 8). That night, Roberts made a post on his “X,” (formerly twitter) announcing the

occurrence of this fire and Roberts’ intent to rebuild the house. (Affidavit Roberts at ¶ 9). A

true and accurate copy of that post is attached to Roberts’ affidavit as Exhibit 4. Id. As the

tweet/post reflects, Roberts announced his and his grandparents’ intention to rebuild. Id.

Similarly, Roberts made a post on Facebook that same night, a true and accurate copy of which

is attached as Exhibit 5. Id. It also indicated that he and his grandparents would rebuild the

house. Id.

After the fire, Roberts (i) continued to receive and check mail at the 8062 Address; (ii)

continued to be registered to vote at the 8062 Address; (iii) continued to keep his vehicle

registration at the 8062 Address; (iv) continued to maintain his drivers license at the 8062

Address; (v) kept and maintained his animals in the garage and barn at the 8062 Address, that

consisted of two cats, two horses, three chickens, and three birds; (vi) kept personal property not

lost in the fire in the garage at the 8062 Address, to include photographs, horse tools and

materials, family heirlooms, memorabilia. (Affidavit Roberts at ¶ 11). Roberts did all of these

things because he and his grandparents intended to (and did) move back in as soon as the home

was rebuilt. Id.

2
 During the reconstruction process, Roberts stayed at the 8062 Address overnight three or

four nights, sleeping in the barn. (Affidavit Roberts at ¶ 12).

From the date of the fire, until the home’s re-construction was completed, Roberts went

back home to the 8062 Address almost every day, save when he was temporarily out of town (for

instance, when he took the Ohio Bar examination for two days in July of 2023 out of town, and

had a vacation in Florida in August, 2023 following the bar examination). (Affidavit Roberts at

¶ 13). He did this because he checked mail, fed the animals, and wanted to ensure the continued

security of the personal property, and, during reconstruction, wanted to check on progress. Id.

He did all of these things because he intended to (and did) move back in as soon as the home was

rebuilt. Id.

Roberts and his grandparents made a claim on their homeowner’s insurance that the

home at the 8062 Address with Allstate, who insured the home, the evening of May 2, 2023,

following the fire. (Affidavit Roberts at ¶ 14). On May 3, 2023, Roberts and his grandparents

had a meeting with Allstate, and were asked whether they wanted to take a payout and move

elsewhere, or to rebuild, and they indicated, at that meeting, that they wanted to rebuild the home

at the 8062 Address. (Affidavit Roberts at ¶ 15).

Allstate then provided the amount the insurer would pay for the reconstruction of the

home at the 8062 Address, sometime in mid to late May, 2023. (Affidavit Roberts at ¶ 16).

Roberts and his grandparents then shopped homebuilders in late May to early June, 2023.

(Affidavit Roberts at ¶ 17). After scheduling a meeting on June 12, 2023, Roberts and his

grandparents then met on June 15, 2023, with Schumacher Homes, Inc., to discuss options and

contracting to rebuild the home at the 8062 Address. (Affidavit Roberts at ¶ 18). A true and

accurate copy of an email confirming that meeting to discuss home construction is attached as

3
Exhibit 6 to Roberts’ affidavit. Id. This contracting and options process took several weeks to

discuss and work through. (Affidavit Roberts at ¶ 19).

Then, on July 18, 2023, Roberts and his grandmother contracted with Schumacher

Homes, Inc. to rebuild the home at the 8062 Address. (Affidavit Roberts at ¶ 20). A true and

accurate copy of that contract is attached at Exhibit 7 to his affidavit. Id.

After contracting, it took Schumacher Homes, Inc. a couple months to mobilize (and for

the home rebuild project to get on their schedule), and they began actual reconstruction of the

home at the 8062 Address. (Affidavit Roberts at ¶ 21). A copy of a Facebook post Roberts

made, with a picture he took that depicted the start of that construction, is attached at Exhibit 8 to

his affidavit. Id.

In early November, 2023, Schumacher Homes, Inc. substantially completed construction

of the home at 8062 Address, with the exception of the siding. (Affidavit Roberts at ¶ 23). By

early December, 2023, the siding was completed and the home was substantially completed.

(Affidavit Roberts at ¶ 24). Punch-list items with Schumacher Homes, Inc. were conducted in

late mid to late December, 2023, and the final occupancy permit was issued January, 2024.

(Affidavit Roberts at ¶ 25).

Roberts was at the 8062 Address every single day in November, December, 2023 and

January, 2024, to check mail, to feed the animals, to check on construction progress, and to

ensure that heat was provided to the residence during cold weather. (Affidavit Roberts at ¶ 26).

Roberts and his grandparents moved back into the home at the 8062 Address on January 11,

2024, which was as soon as they legally could do so. (Affidavit Roberts at ¶ 27).

Immediately after the fire, Roberts temporarily stayed with his mother, at 13391 U.S.

Highway 42, Walton Kentucky, from May 2, 2023 through June 18, 2023. (Affidavit Roberts at

4
¶ 28). Roberts had no intention to make this his permanent address, did not have mail forwarded

there, did not change his voter registration or vehicle registration, and merely temporarily stayed

there to arrange reconstruction of the home at the 8062 Address. Id.

From June 18, 2023 through January 10, 2024, Roberts temporarily stayed at 3059 Torrid

Street, in Burlington, Kentucky (also in the Fourth Congressional District and 66 th Kentucky

House District). (Affidavit Roberts at ¶ 29). This temporary living situation was set up and paid

for by Allstate, and its agent, CRS, during reconstruction. Id. A true and accurate copy of

communications confirming this is attached at Exhibit 10 to his affidavit. Id. As those

communications indicate, the situation was temporary, and solely for purposes of providing

temporary housing during reconstruction of the home at the 8062 Address. Id. The insurer

estimated an outside date of April, 2024, for the reconstruction process, but it was completed

before then. Id. Roberts had no intention to make this his permanent address, did not have mail

forwarded there, did not change his voter registration or vehicle registration, and merely

temporarily stayed there during the pendency of reconstruction of the home at the 8062 Address.

Id.

From the date of the fire, on May 2, 2023, until the home was reconstructed, Roberts had

and maintained the intention to return and resume living at 8062 Address as soon as he and his

grandparents could get the home rebuilt, which reconstruction they immediately and diligently

pursued. (Affidavit Roberts at ¶ 30). The temporary dislocation due to the fire was just that:

temporary, and only for the period necessary to reconstruct the home at the 8062 Address. Id.

Roberts legal residence, throughout 2023 and 2024, was thus the 8062 Address.

(Affidavit Roberts at ¶ 31).

5
 Prior to signing his paperwork to run for office for Kentucky House District 66, and prior

to Roberts signing Congressman Massie’s paperwork as a witness, Roberts communicated with

the Kentucky Secretary of State’s Office. (Affidavit Roberts at ¶ 32). They provided the advice

that the address to be listed is the permanent legal residence address, and not any temporary

address. Id. Roberts followed that advice in completing both forms. Id.

II. Law

KRS 118.125 governs the requirements to be placed on a primary ballot. In relevant part,

that statute states:

(1) … any person who is qualified under the provisions of KRS 116.055 to vote in any
primary for the candidates for nomination by the party at whose hands he or she seeks the
nomination, shall have his or her name printed on the official ballot of his or her party for
an office to which he is eligible in that primary, upon filing, with the Secretary of State or
county clerk, as appropriate, at the proper time, a notification and declaration.
(2) The notification and declaration shall be in the form prescribed by the State Board of
Elections. It shall be signed by the candidate and by not less than two (2) registered
voters of the same party from the district or jurisdiction from which the candidate seeks
nomination. Signatures for nomination papers shall not be affixed on the document to be
filed prior to the first Wednesday after the first Monday in November of the year
preceding the year in which the office will appear on the ballot. The notification and
declaration for a candidate shall include the following oath:
“For the purpose of having my name placed on the official primary election ballot as a
candidate for nomination by the Party, I, - - - - - - - - - - - -(name in full as desired on the
ballot as provided in KRS 118.129), do solemnly swear that my residence address is
(street, route, highway, city if applicable, county, state, and zip code), that my mailing
address, if different, is (post office address), and that I am a registered -(party) voter in
precinct; that I believe in the principles of the Party, and intend to support its principles
and policies; that I meet all the statutory and constitutional qualifications for the office
which I am seeking; that if nominated as a candidate of such party at the ensuing election
I will accept the nomination and not withdraw for reasons other than those stated in KRS
118.105(3); that I will not knowingly violate any election law or any law relating to
corrupt and fraudulent practice in campaigns or elections in this state, and if finally
elected I will qualify for the office.”
The declaration shall be subscribed and sworn to before an officer authorized to
administer an oath by the candidate and by the two (2) voters making the declaration and
signing the candidate’s petition for office.

6
 KRS 118.125 is clear that what is required of a witness signature is that the witnesses (i)

be from the same district or jurisdiction, as well as the same political party, from which the

candidate seeks nomination; (ii) that the signatures be completed after the first Wednesday after

the first Monday in November in the year prior to the election; and (iii) that the signature of the

witness be notarized.

Here, there is no question but that Mr. Roberts was a resident of the Fourth Congressional

District (regardless of whether one uses the 8062 East Bend address or the temporary Torrid

Street address), registered as a Republican, that the signatures were affixed and sworn to within

the appropriate window, and were appropriately notarized. That alone disposes of this matter.

However, the Court also finds that Roberts permanent legal residence never changed

from the 8062 Address. Several Kentucky cases, some going back over 100 years, outline the

test to be applied, and all make clear that Mr. Roberts never lost his permanent legal residence

due to the temporary dislocation due to a fire.

Perhaps most recently, is the Kentucky Supreme Court’s decision in Mobley v.

Armstrong, 978 S.W.2d 307, 310-311 (1998). There, the Court explained that “we must evaluate

both actions and intent when determining residency because neither is exclusively controlling.”

citing Semple v. Commonwealth, Ky., 181 Ky. 675, 205 S.W. 789, 791 (1918). “If someone's

actions conclusively show he resides in one place, his intention to live in another place may not

override these facts.” Id. (emphasis added). The conclusive showing that is required is, in this

case, an insurmountable hurdle for Deters.

In Mobley, the Court found that the candidate did not establish his residency in Jefferson

County, because: “(1) appellant did not change his voter's registration back to Jefferson County

[from Trimble County] until July 23, 1997 [for a 1998 election with a two year residency

7
requirement]; (2) appellant's driver's license is still issued from Trimble County; (3) one of

appellant's automobile's is titled in Trimble County; (4) appellant's tax records indicate his home

address is in Trimble County; (5) appellant made his permanent home in Trimble County, only

sleeping in Jefferson County occasionally and then in a hotel or at his place of business; and (6)

appellant kept all of his personalty which was not directly related to his profession in Trimble,

not Jefferson County.” Id. at 311.

Here, of course, (1) Mr. Roberts voter registration has always been maintained in

Kentucky and at 8062 East Bend Rd., Burlington, KY 41005, (2) Mr. Roberts driver license has

always been maintained at 8062 East Bend Rd., Burlington, KY 41005, (3) his automobile has

always been registered at 8062 East Bend Rd., Burlington, KY 41005, and (4) his personal

property has been maintained at 8062 East Bend Rd., Burlington, KY 41005. Under Mobley, the

analysis is clear: his legal residence for the past three years, at least is at 8062 East Bend Rd.,

Burlington, KY 41005.

An older case, Semple v. Commonwealth, 181 Ky. 675, 680-681 (1918), had several other

observations relevant here:

All authorities agree that one may not have a legal residence in two or more jurisdictions
at the same time, although he may have a number of actual places of residence coexisting
in different localities. There is also another well founded rule that when one acquires a
domicile it can not be changed without the acquisition of another domicile, which, as
seen, must be done by acts, conduct and intention.

Mere change of residence is not of itself proof of a change of domicile unless

accompanied by an intention, express or implied, to abandon the old domicile and acquire
a new one. Within the principle of law declared in the decisions, a person may reside for
pleasure or health in one place without forfeiting or surrendering his domicile or legal
residence in another, if he so intends. It is not residence alone, but it is the intention of the
person, expressed or implied from the facts in the evidence, conjoined with residence,
that determines domicile. Every person sui juris and capable of controlling his personal
movements may change his domicile at pleasure, but a change of domicile involves
intention as the dominant factor. Id.

8
 Other cases are in accord: Baker v. Baker, Eccles & Co., 162 Ky. 683 (1915) (court

concluding residency established by someone voting in a particular location); Graves' Adm'r v.

Georgetown, 154 Ky. 207 (1913) (where someone votes is substantial evidence of residency);

Wheeler v. Burgess, 263 Ky. 693 (1936) (notwithstanding a move to France and remaining there

for six years, keeping property in Kentucky and an intention to return kept the domicile -- or

legal residence -- in Kentucky); Dickey v. Bagby, 574 S.W.2d 922, 923 (1978) (notwithstanding

multiple moves around the United States in connection with federal employment, person

remained Kentucky resident, concluding that a person "may have many residences but in the

absence of showing an intention of abandoning his Kentucky citizenship, his state of origin, he

will be deemed a Kentucky citizen for the purpose of qualifying for office in that state").

“[A] change in legal residence or domicile requires a physical act coupled with the intent

to abandon the domicile previously established.” Hunter v. Mena, 302 S.W.3d 93, 96 (Ky. App.

2010). A person may have more than one place of residence at any given time and maintain a

permanent place of residence even though he or she may live elsewhere temporarily. Cf. Hite's

Admr. v. Hite's Admr, 265 Ky. 786, 97 S.W.2d 811 (1936). Indeed, “'[i]ntention is the dominant

factor in determining' the question of domicile.” 97 S.W.2d 811 at 813. “As indicated in those

authorities, one may have a number of places of abode which he may call his home or his

residence, as the latter term is often used, but he can have but one domicile, which, when once

acquired, continues until changed in a legal manner, as by abandoning it and taking up another

with the intention to make it permanent for an indefinite time.” Id.

"There is a presumption that an established domicile continues until another is acquired

by actual residence there with the intention of abandoning the former one." Burr's Adm'r v.

Hatter, 240 Ky. 721, 725, 43 S.W.2d 26, 27 (Ky. App. 1931).

9
 Case law is clear that temporary dislocation does not permit someone to vote anywhere

other than the legal domicile. Matney v. Elswick, 242 Ky. 183, 45 S.W.2d 1046 (Ky. App.

1932). "If he actually lives in one district, he cannot vote in another, unless he resides in the

former merely for a temporary purpose." 242 Ky. at 184; 45 S.W.2d at 1047.

Most fatal to Petitioner, however, are two cases that deal with dislocations due to fires

burning a residence. First, Thompson v. Emmert, 242 Ky. 415, 46 S.W.2d 502 (Ky.

1932). There, the Court determined that “[i]f an absence depends upon the completion of some

temporary task, or upon the discharge of some duty of a temporary nature, the time fixed for a

return to the domicile is sufficiently definite.” 242 Ky. 415 at 417, 46 S.W.2d at 503. “John

Thompson and wife had lived in the Rush Point district, but had moved away to make a crop on

a rented farm, intending to return to their home when the crop was gathered.” Id. “During the

temporary absence, the house where they formerly lived was destroyed by fire.” Id. “The

testimony tends to show that the place where the house burnt is their permanent home, and that it

is their present purpose to rebuild the house and move into it.” 242 Ky. 415 at 418, 46 S.W.2d

at 503. The Court was clear that temporary dislocation due to a fire was not sufficient to deprive

the person of legal residence.

Similarly, in Everman v. Thomas, 303 Ky. 156, 171-172, 197 S.W.2d 58, 67 (Ky. App.

1946), Kentucky’s highest court reversed a circuit court that disqualified a candidate whose

home had burned. That is because of testimony the candidate that “he had always had the intent

and purpose of keeping his original voting place and of rebuilding his home when conditions

permitted.” Id. And, again, Kentucky’s highest Court ruled that temporary loss of the home, and

dislocation elsewhere did not change legal residence based on that testimony. Id.

10
 Roberts statement on the petition, here, that his residence was 8062 East Bend Rd.,

Burlington, KY was truthful – that was his legal residence – and he did not lose it because he

suffered a tragic fire, immediately took steps to rebuild the residence, and temporarily stayed

elsewhere while the home was rebuilt.

Petitioner’s petition is thus patently frivolous.

Thomas Massie’s petition met all legal requirements required in KRS 118.125. Including

Roberts accurately and truthfully listing his permanent legal residence at the 8062 Address.

III. Conclusion

Pursuant to KRS 118.176, the Court finds that Thomas Massie is a bona fide candidate in

the 2024 election cycle. This is a final order and judgment, and there is no just reason for delay.

C.R. 54.04. The Court retains jurisdiction to determine the pending sanctions motion against the

Petitioner. Allen v. Wheeler, 2021 Ky. App. Unpub. LEXIS 95 (Ky. App. 2021).

IT IS SO ORDERED:

_________________________________

The Circuit Clerk is directed, pursuant to C.R. 58, shall note it in the civil docket, and shall serve

a copy of this entry upon the following:

Eric Deters Hon. Christopher Wiest

5247 Madison Pike 50 E. Rivercenter Blvd, Ste. 1280
Independence, KY 41051 Covington, KY 41011

Kentucky Board of Elections Hon. Michael G. Adams, Secretary of State

140 Walnut Street 700 Capital Ave., Ste. 152
Frankfort, Kentucky 40601 Frankfort, KY 40601

11