Filed 24-CI-00022 02/26/2024 Teresa Callahan, Lewis Circuit Clerk

NOT ORIGINAL
DOCUMENT
03/15/2024 06:34:36
AM COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY
LEWIS CIRCUIT COURT
90725
24-CI-00022
Electronically Filed
ERIC C. DETERS PETITIONER
v.
THOMAS H. MASSIE, et. al. RESPONDENTS
MOTION OF THOMAS H. MASSIE FOR SANCTIONS UNDER C.R. 11
Thomas H. Massie, by and through Counsel moves for an Order imposing sanctions

under C.R. 11 against the Plaintiff/Petitioner, Eric C. Deters. A memorandum in support is

attached hereto. So is a proposed order.

Respectfully submitted,

/s/Christopher Wiest____________ /s/Thomas 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____________ SANC : 000001 of 000009

1
Filed 24-CI-00022 02/26/2024 Teresa Callahan, Lewis Circuit Clerk
 Filed 24-CI-00022 02/26/2024 Teresa Callahan, Lewis Circuit Clerk

NOT ORIGINAL
DOCUMENT
03/15/2024 06:34:36
AM CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
90725
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, as his address, on

that petition, 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 Deters’ 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);
SANC : 000002 of 000009

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
Filed 24-CI-00022 02/26/2024 Teresa Callahan, Lewis Circuit Clerk
 Filed 24-CI-00022 02/26/2024 Teresa Callahan, Lewis Circuit Clerk

NOT ORIGINAL
DOCUMENT
03/15/2024 06:34:36
AM frivolous or malicious filings,2 engages in yet more misconduct. This time, he brings a frivolous
90725
and malicious suit claiming that one of Congressman Massie signers’ signatures, Mr. Roberts,

was somehow invalid, because he 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

drivers 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 explained in our motion to adjudicate the matter, these allegations alone were sufficient to

establish that Mr. Roberts did not lose his permanent legal residence under clearly established

and longstanding Kentucky law.

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
SANC : 000003 of 000009

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
Filed 24-CI-00022 02/26/2024 Teresa Callahan, Lewis Circuit Clerk
 Filed 24-CI-00022 02/26/2024 Teresa Callahan, Lewis Circuit Clerk

NOT ORIGINAL
DOCUMENT
03/15/2024 06:34:36
AM We explained in our substantive motion for adjudication why these very allegations
90725
preclude a challenge here. But we add some additional context that the Court may wish to

consider in ascertaining whether this action was brought in good faith, and demonstrating that it

was not.

In addition to more than two decades of frivolous and malicious actions, characterized by

the Kentucky Supreme Court in Deters v. Ky. Bar Ass'n, 627 S.W.3d 917, 924 (Ky. 2021) as

being “[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,” Deters engaged in the same shenanigans less

than a year ago, and then dismissed the matter just a few days after filing the matter, after Deters

issued press releases, and obtained press over the filing. See Exhibit 1, hereto, Craft Agreed

Order.3

The same is true here: Deters issued a press release with his filing resulting in press

coverage,4 and has trumpeted this filing on social media. See Exhibit 2. And, moreover, when

one considers this conduct in light of the sheer frivolous nature of this filing, contrary to

published case law from Kentucky’s highest court, the improper purpose becomes clear.

II. LAW AND ARGUMENT

C.R. 11 provides, in relevant part:

Every pleading, motion and other paper of a party represented by an attorney shall be
signed by at least one attorney of record in his individual name, whose address shall be
stated. … The signature of an attorney or party constitutes a certification by him that he
SANC : 000004 of 000009

3
https://www.whas11.com/article/news/local/eric-deters-kelly-craft-lawsuit-legal-residence-
kentucky-governor-race-2023-republican/417-fc705ef3-c147-4bf2-8bf1-f3debbc1c389 (last
accessed 2/25/2024)
4
https://linknky.com/politics/2024/02/21/kentucky-deters-massie-lawsuit/ (last accessed
2/25/2024)
4
Filed 24-CI-00022 02/26/2024 Teresa Callahan, Lewis Circuit Clerk
 Filed 24-CI-00022 02/26/2024 Teresa Callahan, Lewis Circuit Clerk

NOT ORIGINAL
DOCUMENT
03/15/2024 06:34:36
AM has read the pleading, motion or other paper; that to the best of his knowledge,
information, and belief formed after reasonable inquiry it is well grounded in fact and is
90725
warranted by existing law or a good faith argument for the extension, modification or
reversal of existing law, and that it is not interposed for any improper purpose, such as to
harass or to cause unnecessary delay or needless increase in the cost of litigation. … If a
pleading, motion, or other paper is signed in violation of this rule, the court, upon
motion or upon its own initiative, shall impose upon the person who signed it, a
represented party, or both, an appropriate sanction, which may include an order to
pay to the other party or parties the amount of the reasonable expenses incurred
because of the filing of the pleading, motion, or other paper, including a reasonable
attorney's fee. The Court shall postpone ruling on any Rule 11 motions filed in the
litigation until after entry of a final judgment.

To that end, attorney's fees may be awarded under Civil Rule 11 for filing pleadings that

are not "well grounded in fact," not "warranted by existing law or a good faith argument for the

extension, modification or reversal of existing law," or that are filed for "any improper purpose,

such as to harass or to cause unnecessary delay or needless increase in the cost of litigation."

(Emphasis in original). Bell v. Com., Cabinet for Health & Family Servs., Dep't for Cmty. Based

Servs., 423 S.W.3d 742, 749 (Ky. 2014). In determining whether to impose sanctions, a trial

court must find that an attorney has unreasonably signed a pleading or motion which lead to

abusive litigation. Lexington Inv. Co. v. Willeroy, 396 S.W.3d 309, 312-13 (Ky. App. 2013).

The test to be used by the trial court in considering a motion for sanctions is whether the

attorney's or party’s conduct, at the time he or she signed the allegedly offending pleading or

motion, was reasonable under the circumstances. Louisville Rent-A-Space v. Akai, Ky. App., 746

S.W.2d 85 (1988).

A lack of bad faith alone is not sufficient to avoid sanctions: rather, the inquiry is
SANC : 000005 of 000009

"reasonableness under the circumstances." Louisville Rent-A-Space, 746 S.W.2d 85; see, also,

Deters v. Huebener, 2009 Ky. App. Unpub. LEXIS 80 (Ky. App. 2009) (imposing sanctions for

similar vexatious litigation conduct).

5
Filed 24-CI-00022 02/26/2024 Teresa Callahan, Lewis Circuit Clerk
 Filed 24-CI-00022 02/26/2024 Teresa Callahan, Lewis Circuit Clerk

NOT ORIGINAL
DOCUMENT
03/15/2024 06:34:36
AM Sanctions are appropriate when litigants pursue baseless claims. Large v. Oberson, 537
90725
S.W.3d 336 (Ky. App. 2017).

As the Court may recall, throughout this litigation, Petitioner has incredibly argued that a

temporary dislocation, due to fire, somehow deprived someone of their residence. He did so,

despite two published cases that directly hold to the contrary. Thompson v. Emmert, 242 Ky.

415, 46 S.W.2d 502 (Ky. 1932); Everman v. Thomas, 303 Ky. 156, 171-172, 197 S.W.2d 58, 67

(Ky. App. 1946).

C.R. 11 requires that a “reasonable inquiry” occur prior to a filing; here, and despite

Deters ability to research the law, it is clear that no legal research whatsoever was done. The

complaint was not well grounded in fact, and was not warranted by existing law or a good faith

argument for the extension, modification or reversal of existing law. And, based on the totality

of the circumstances, including the Petitioner’s history of filing frivolous and self-serving

actions, his prior history of vexatiously challenging another opponents’ residence, and the

actions set forth in the factual section, this entire matter was interposed for improper purposes,

namely to harass, cause needless delay, generate free press coverage, and increase the costs of

litigation.

Courts routinely issue sanctions where the purpose of a filing is not to adjudicate an

issue, but instead to garner press coverage, as Deters did in 2023 with respect to Kelly Craft, and

as he does yet again. See, e.g., Ivy v. Kimbrough, 115 F.3d 550, 553 (8th Cir. 1997) (no abuse of

discretion in imposing Rule 11 sanctions, where, inter alia, conduct was "aimed at the media"

and "primarily for local media consumption"); Kramer v. Tribe, 156 F.R.D. 96 (D.N.J. 1994),
SANC : 000006 of 000009

aff'd without opinion, 52 F.3d 315 (3rd Cir.), cert. denied, 516 U.S. 907 (1995) (imposing Rule

6
Filed 24-CI-00022 02/26/2024 Teresa Callahan, Lewis Circuit Clerk
 Filed 24-CI-00022 02/26/2024 Teresa Callahan, Lewis Circuit Clerk

NOT ORIGINAL
DOCUMENT
03/15/2024 06:34:36
AM 11 sanctions because, among other things, giving misleading reports to media demonstrated
90725
improper purpose motives (including intent to embarrass)).

Perhaps though, the case that is most similar is Cunningham v. Keller, 2017 Ky. App.

Unpub. LEXIS 448 (Ky. App. 2017). In that case, involving election related challenges similar

to those brought here that the alleged “basis for filing the original complaint was premised on her

unsupported allegations of election campaign fraud.” There, as here, “the court found that many

of Cunningham's allegations were vague, mere conjecture, and unsupported by the facts.” And,

as was the case there, “the factual basis upon which Cunningham filed her lawsuit was not well-

grounded and was manipulated or exaggerated to suit her allegations of wrongdoing.” As a

result, the Circuit Court found that this "would lead no reasonable attorney to conclude that they

could support an action to void the election or oust Justice Keller from her position." Id. The

Court of Appeals upheld the award of C.R. 11 sanctions.

This is not the only time Plaintiff has engaged in such conduct. As noted, Plaintiff was

suspended from the practice of law for filing a baseless libel claim and making false statements in

the pleadings of the case. Ky. Bar Ass'n v. Deters, 406 S.W.3d 812 (Ky. 2013). The Kentucky

Supreme Court took notice of this misconduct last summer in denying Plaintiff’s application for

reinstatement to the Kentucky Bar Association. See generally, Deters v. Ky Bar Ass’n, 627 S.W.3d

917 (Ky. 2021). In this opinion, the Kentucky Supreme Court noted that Plaintiff has a “notorious

propensity to file malicious or frivolous lawsuits.” Id. at 928 (emphasis added). This observation

was, of course, connected to a frivolous claim Plaintiff filed against a judge, despite the law clearly

conferring absolute immunity in the case. Id. The judge in that case pointed out that Plaintiff
SANC : 000007 of 000009

“either fails to understand or willingly disregards that clear legal doctrine.” Id. (citing Deters v.

Hammer, No. 1:20-CV-00362, 2021 WL 664011, at *7 (S.D. Ohio Feb. 19, 2021)).

7
Filed 24-CI-00022 02/26/2024 Teresa Callahan, Lewis Circuit Clerk
 Filed 24-CI-00022 02/26/2024 Teresa Callahan, Lewis Circuit Clerk

NOT ORIGINAL
DOCUMENT
03/15/2024 06:34:36
AM All in all, this seems like the same old dirty tricks, but this time without a license to
90725
practice law and on his own behalf as a pro se litigant. But Plaintiff’s pro se status does not

mitigate the obvious misconduct presented to this court. Plaintiff is a law school graduate.

Plaintiff had decades of legal experience as an attorney before his license to practice law was

suspended. “Deters possesses the ability to follow the rules, he simply chooses not to.” Deters,

627 S.W.3d at 928. Due to Plaintiff’s knowledge of the rules and law, and his flagrant disregard

for them in this proceeding, he should be sanctioned pursuant to C.R. 11.

Such should be the result here. C.R. 11 sanctions should be awarded. If the Court

awards, as sanctions, a sanction that includes reasonable attorney fees and costs, Congressman

Massie respectfully requests the ability to supplement with an affidavit of Counsel and the

invoice for services. Among the sanctions this Court should impose is imposition of a judicial

screening requirement, such that this Petitioner be prohibited from filing, pro se, any future

actions in court unless such actions are screened first by a court to ensure they do not violate

C.R. 11. See Callihan v. Grayson Rural Elec. Coop. Corp, 2010 Ky. App. Unpub. LEXIS 56

(Ky. App. 2010) (affirming screening requirement imposed by Greenup Circuit Court upon

vexatious litigant).

III. CONCLUSION

C.R. 11 sanctions should be imposed against Petitioner for this filing.

SANC : 000008 of 000009

8
Filed 24-CI-00022 02/26/2024 Teresa Callahan, Lewis Circuit Clerk
 Filed 24-CI-00022 02/26/2024 Teresa Callahan, Lewis Circuit Clerk

NOT ORIGINAL
DOCUMENT
03/15/2024 06:34:36
AM Respectfully submitted,
90725
/s/Christopher Wiest____________ /s/Thomas 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

SANC : 000009 of 000009

9
Filed 24-CI-00022 02/26/2024 Teresa Callahan, Lewis Circuit Clerk