I have not been able to get my hands on the original Complaint, but I did finally receive a copy of the Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment dated July 9, 2013.  This Motion, filed by Joseph P. Klock, Jr., Esq. on behalf of Plaintiff Kevin A. Burns, asks the Court to disqualify Lucie Tondreau as the mayor of North Miami based solely on the Plaintiff’s “Statement of Undisputed Facts” that Lucie did not reside in the city “for at least one year prior to qualifying for office.”  As proof of these “facts,” the Plaintiff submitted various documents, such as the “Contract to Lease” (which I discussed in Where in the World is Lucie Douce Tondreau?, a “Voter Registration Card” and a “Residential Lease for Single Family Home or Duplex,” all as submitted by Lucie in her candidacy package.  Plaintiff contends that these documents were not sufficient to prove residency.  They are all attached as Exhibits to the Motion for Summary Judgement, which you can examine for yourself and come to your own conclusion.

Your conclusion (or mine), however, is moot since neither of us wear the judicial robes.

As relief, Plaintiff Kevin A. Burns is asking the Court to Order that Lucie was not qualified to run, that she be removed from office, that Mr. Burns be installed in her place and that the Supervisor of Elections and the North Miami City Clerk  recertify the results of the June 4, 2013 election.

The ten page Motion to Dismiss is pretty cut and dry.  The seventy four pages consisting of Exhibits that follow seem to back up the “Statement of Undisputed Facts.”  Asking the judge to overturn an election, much less install the also ran in the winning candidate’s place, adds a touch of chutzpah to the drama.  But what the hell?  People watch Judge Judy for the drama, so this case should make for good entertainment if nothing else.

Here’s the thing.  Super Lawyer Joseph A. Klock, Jr. has, in my humble opinion, a good case.  This Motion to Dismiss was based only on the fact that Lucie’s candidacy package was insufficient to prove her residency according to the Charter.  According to the evidence, it appears she is guilty as charged.  It also appears that City Clerk, The Hon. Michael A. Etienne, Esquire, screwed up by certifying her candidacy.  Whether he made an honest mistake, or deliberately looked the other way is unclear, but he definitely blew it.  Mr. Klock also contends that Lucie did not live in North Miami for the one year prior to qualifying; however, that is a separate issue from the insufficient candidacy package and will be addressed, if necessary, at a future time.

It also appears that the Super Lawyer Benedict P. Kuehne, who represents Lucie in this matter, did not file a timely answer to the Complaint because Mr. Klock made a point of citing case law allowing him to move for Summary Judgment in advance of the required response.

Yeah, but that’s all technical stuff that judges have to ponder, while we mere voters and spectators just want to get to the finish line.

When Big Ben finally filed a response to the Complaint, he filed an Answer to Amended Complaint and a Motion to Dismiss the Amended Complaint on July 22, 2013.  The Answer basically denies all the allegations in the Complaint, asking the Court to strike certain sections of it, and further alleges that the Complaint failed to prove anything.  Interestingly, Kuehne’s argument centers mainly around the fact that Burns didn’t challenge Lucie’s candidacy in time or through the proper channels.  What Kuehne does not do is attempt to prove that the Plaintiff’s “Statement of Undisputed Facts” are disputable.  He merely claims that she “substantially complied with all the legal requirements” to run.

Aside from the fact that we get to witness a real life pissing contest between two larger than life lawyers who have more notches on their respective belts in terms of winning high profile cases, this is pure entertainment.  That alone is worth the price of a ticket.

But the more fascinating aspect here is that we get an intimate, up close and personal look into the mind of a lawyer who has become the Go To Guy for local public officials charged with crimes and misdemeanors.  Kuehne wins cases more often than not, so there must be a method to his madness.

Kuehne’s Motion to Dismiss untangles a bit of the web he weaves in order to defend the charges against his client.  For one thing, he does not heartily defend the veracity of her candidacy qualification so much as he goes on an ad hominem attack against the Plaintiff.  Saul Alinsky would be proud.  But this is the stuff defense attorneys worth their salt are made of.

Aside from again claiming that Kevin Burns was too late to the party, Kuehne also accuses him of attempting to thwart the will of “a substantial majority of the voters.”  Citing one case law after another, of which the judge will either have to research or take Kuehne’s word for, he goes on and on and on listing all the reasons why he thinks the Plaintiff was devious in filing the Complaint in the first place, insinuating that Burns’ personal vendetta against Lucie is the only reason the Court’s time is being wasted.

Kuehne also introduced the Race Card as evidence, stating that Burns “well understands the demographics and dynamics of Miami-Dade County’s fourth largest municipality” and that “he knew he had no chance to prevail” in the general election.  What Kuehne seems to imply by this is that if Burns had challenged Lucie’s candidacy before the June 4th election and was able to successfully knock her out of the race, Kevin’s only major opponent would have been Dr. Smith Joseph.  What Kuehne politely implied, and which I will not so politely state, is that if Burns had to go toe to toe in a North Miami election with Dr. Joseph, what with the strength and numbers of the Haitian vote, Burns would probably not have a snowball’s chance in hell of winning the race.

That may be the case, but that’s not the subject of the lawsuit at hand.  The real question is whether or not Lucie was qualified to run for mayor in the first place.  But if Benedict P. Kuehne has his druthers, the legal question of residency and sufficiency of the proceedings is besides the point.

It’s all about who wins the pissing contest.

Kuehne’s feigned patriotic declaration that Burns’ Complaint is all about attacking “the democratic process” is the red herring method by which high powered defense attorneys win that pissing contest.

Joseph A. Klock, Jr., Esquire, is no ninety pound weakling in this contest.  He argued successfully the 2000 Florida election on behalf of former Attorney General Katherine Harris regarding the Bush/Kerry recount.  He won.  Ben Kuehne has his work cut out for him.  It should provide for an interesting spectacle to say the least.

Me thinks Shakespeare would have relished this drama immensely.  So do I.

Stephanie Kienzle
“Spreading the Wealth”

(Note:  The documents were too large to attach to this blog, but if you would like copies via email please contact me.)