***** Special "merit" judge's opinion is correct! *****

The special judge in the merit system investigation case has issued his opinion. Because the judge's opinion vindicated me on ALL the points raised, with the exception of the immunity issue which I did NOT discuss earlier (see my earlier post), I shall limit my analysis to that very issue ONLY. Here is the essence of the judge's ruling: (1) The Gov. is accused of official, such as hiring and firing employees (as opposed to unofficial acts -- such as assaults, bribes, burglaries); (2) Agrieved employees could sue the Gov. in various courts around the commonwealth; (3) While the Gov. does not enjoy absolute immunity from prosecution, the prospect of (2) requires a Fitzgerald V. Nixon, 457 U. S. 731, 754 (1982) balancing of competing interests and deference to the constitutional seperation of powers doctrine; and (4) such balancing and deference, together with adherence to Ky constitutional provisions 27, 28, 68, and the fact that KRS 18A.990 (2) requires the GOV.'s removal from office, thereby "put[ing] the cart before the horse" in violation of our constitution, mandates that the criminal action be stayed until after the Gov. is impeached or leaves office.
Here is my conclusion: The Nixon court found after the balancing test that "[t]he exercise of jurisdiction is not warranted in the case of merely private suits for damages based on a President's official acts". Assuming that that the same Nixon principle ought to apply here, the merit case is NOT about private suits so it is distinguishable. But the inquiry should not end there. Can the prospect of being sued in various courts around the commonwealth prevent the prosecution of the Gov.? I don't think the speculative nature of this inquiry merits any further discussion. Then what about the constitutional provisions mentioned by the court? Does a balancing of the competing interests require the "stop prosecuting" order issued by the court? It appears to do so. Why? Well, review, if you will, the provision of KY const. sec. 68: "The Governor and all civil officers shall be liable to impeachment for any misdemeanors in office; but judgment in such cases shall not extend further than removal from office, and disqualification to hold any office of honor, trust or profit under this Commonwealth; but the party convicted shall, nevertheless, be subject and liable to indictment, trial and punishment by law. " The plain reading of this constitutional provision suggests an impeachment conviction FIRST, before any indictment, trial and punishment by law! So regardless of what you hear out there, Chief Justice Joseph Lambert and special Judge David Melcher are right -- prosecuting the Gov. before he is FIRST "liable to impeachment" will constitutionally "put the [prosecution] cart before the [impeachment] horse"!! (The inserted words in the quote are mine).