a. 22 23 24 SONS OF CONFEDERATE VETERANS, KENTUCKY DIVISION, INC, (a Kentucky domestic non-profit corporation) P.O. Box 583 Pikeville, Kentucky 41501 and FRED C. WILHITE, Individually, and in his capacity as Chief of Heritage Defense, Kentucky Divisi Sons of Confederate Veterans, Kentucky Din P.O. Box 10 g21i State Highway 81-N Calhoun, Kentucky 42327, ion, Inc. and EVERETT CORLEY 314 North Hubbards Lane ‘Louisville, Kentucky 40207 and EDWARD SPRINGSTON 7707 Trillium Drive Louisville, Kentucky 40258 VARIFIED COMPLAINT vs. FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF HON. GREG FISCHER, Individually, and in his capac’ Mayor of Louisville Louisville Metro Hall 500 West Jefferson Street Louisville, Kentucky 40202 yas and Sons of Confederate Vetorans tal, vs Mayor Grea Fischer, etal, Page of 26 JEFFERSON CIRCUIT COURT} DIVISIO! PLAINTIFTS|LOUISVILLE-JEFFERSON COUNTY METROPOLITAN GOVERNMENT SERVE: Hon Greg Fischer, Mayor Louisville Metro Hall 500 West Jefferson Street Louisville, Kentucky 40202 DEFENDANTS| Come now the Plaintiffs, and for their Cause of Action herein, state as follows: JURISDICTION AND VENUE, (2) Subject matter jurisdiction over this Action exists under Section 112 of th Kentucky Constitution, because the amount in controversy, excluding interest, costs, ang attorney's fees, exceeds the jurisdictional prerequisites of this Court, (2) Venue is proper in Jefferson Circuit Court, because the Defendants and two of the Plaintiffs reside in or perform their official duties in Jefferson County, Kentucky, al acts complained of, and the injuries and damages sustained by Plaintiffs, occurred in Jefferson County, Kentucky. PARTIES (3) Plaintiff, SONS OF CONFEDERATE VETERANS, KENTUCKY DIVISION, INC, is a Kentucky domestic non-profit corporation (IRC §501(c)(3)), and has it registered principal office located at P. O. Box 583, Pikeville, Kentucky 41501 ‘Sons of Confederate Veterans te vs. Mavor Gea Fischer, ot a, Page 2 of 2610 a a2 13 a ae 19 20 21 22. 23 24 (4) Plaintiff, FRED C. WILHITE, sues in his individual capacity, and in his capacit as Chief of Heritage Defense, Kentucky Division, Sons of Confederate Veterans, Kentucky Division, Inc., and resides at P.O. Box 10, 3211 State Highway 81-N, Calhoun, Kentucky 42327 (5) Pl iff, EVERETT CORLEY, resides at 314 North Hubbards Lane, Louisville Kentucky 40207. (6) Plaintiff, EDWARD SPRINGSTON, resides at 7707 Trillium Drive, Louisville] Kentucky 40258. (7) Plaintiff, HON. GREG FISCHER, (hereinafter, “MAYOR FISCHER”) is bein; sued individually, and in his capacity as Mayor of Louisville-Jefferson Count ‘Metropolitan Government, and his official business address is Louisville Metro Hall, 50% West Jefferson Street, Louisville, Kentucky 40202. (8) Defendant, LOUISVILLE-JEFFERSON COUNTY METROPOLITAN GOV- ERNMENT (hereinafter, “LOUISVILLE METRO”) is the successor government to the merged governments of the former City of Louisville and former Jefferson County, pursuant to KRS 67C.101. ‘This entity is authorized to conduct governmental business on} behalf of the izenry of the merged city and county, and is sui generis. INTRODUCTION (9) This is a Complaint for Declaratory and Injunetive Relief, Plaintiffs request issuance of a Restraining Order, a Temporary Injunction and a Permanent Injunction| against the Honorable Greg Fischer and the Louisville-Jefferson County Metropolitan] ‘Sons of Confederate Veterans ea, vs. Mavor Goa Fischer eta, Page 3of 26Government, barring them from removing, moving, disassembling, placing into storage| or tampering in any way with the Confederate Monument; a 70-foot-tall monument| adjacent to and surrounded by the University of Louisville Belknap Campus in| Louisville, Jefferson County, Kentucky, while this Court considers Plaintiffs’ claims| against all Defendants FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS (10) The Confederate Monument in Louisville (hereinafter, “The Monument”) is 4 '7o-foot-tall monument adjacent to and surrounded by the University of Louisvill Belknap Campus in Louisville, Jefferson County, Kentucky. Owned by LOUISVILLE METRO, the monument commemorates the sacrifice of Confederate veterans. ‘Completed in 1895, the Confederate Monument was built with funding from the Kentucky Women's Confederate Monument Association, costing $12,000. Its dedicatio }was on May 6, 1895, to coincide with the 29th Grand Army of the Republic annual reunion. (41) Initially, the Confederate Monument was built away from the University's campus at rd and Shipp Streets, but was moved in 1954 when the Eastern Parkway viaduct over the campus was built. During the 1920s and 1940s there were plans to remove the monument for road construction, until public sentiment saved it. In fact, in 1947 Louisville Mayor Charles P. Farnsley, a fighter for civil rights, took a gun and made a public announcement on his wishes to keep the monument where it was. In 2003] Sons of Confederate Veterans el, vs. Mayor Groa Fischer etal, Page 4of 2610 Fer 43 u 15 16 uv 18 19 20 21 22 23 2a plans were initiated to make it part of a "Freedom Park", with trees transplanted from] Civil War battlefields. On November 17, 2008, funding was approved for such a park, wit the Kentucky state government using $1.6 million of federal funds and the university) spending $403,000. Louisville sculptor Ed Hamilton was selected to make a civil rights, monument to counter the Confederate Monument. (12) ‘The monument is located at the intersection of 2nd and grd Streets. It is the| largest Civil War monument in Kentucky. Itis built of granite, with the German Ferdinand von Miller-designed Confederate soldiers (an artillerist, a cavalryman, and an| infantryman) made of bronze. The monument was placed on the National Register of Historic Places on July 17, 1997 (https://www.nps.gov/state/ky/index.htm?program=all), ont of sixty-one different Civil War-related sites in Kentucky so honored on the same day, Four other monuments are in Louisville/Jefferson County. The 32nd Indiana Monument} and the Union Monument in Louisville were both in Cave Hill Cemetery, although the first is now at Louisville's Frazier History Museum to preserve it. The John B, Castleman| Monument is on Cherokee Circle in the Highlands, a block from Bardstown Road. The other, Confederate Martyrs Monument, is in Jeffersontown City Cemetery in Jeffersontown, Kentucky. (13) Defendant, MAYOR FISCHER and University of Louisville President James Ramsey held a press conference on April 29, 2016, and announced that the Confederat Monument would immediately be dismantled and “moved to a new location to b determined at a later date.” “It’s always important to remember and respect our history [but it’s equally important to reflect on that history in proper context,” MAYOR FISCHE} said, “This monument represents our history; a painful part of our nation’s history fo ‘Sons of Confoderate Veterans eal, ve. Mavor Grea Fischer etl, Page 5 of 2516 a aa many — and it’s best moved to a new location.” But, in a Courier-Journal newspapei article by reporter Phillip Bailey, the Mayor was quoted as saying the monument “no| longer has a place in Louisville.” So, the question of where the “new location” is, appears) up in the air. Upon information, Plaintiffs believe it will be thrown into the Municipal Landfill, along with the numerous other Louisville historical relies the city fathers havel “salvaged” over the past few years. (http://www.courier-journal,com/story/news/local/2016/04/29/ramsey-fischer- discuss-confederate-statue/83605160/) (14) Plaintiff, SONS OF CONFEDERATE VETERANS, KENTUCKY DIVISION] INC,, is a Kentucky domestic non-profit corporation (IRC §501(c)(3)), and is one of the preeminent organizations devoted to historic preservation in Kentucky. It has it headquarters in Pikeville. Officers and members of the Sons of Confederate Veterans, Kentucky Division, Inc., are volunteers with a passion for historic preservation. Sons of Confederate Veterans, Kentucky Division, Inc., is a non-partisan, apolitical organizatio that seeksto preservehistoriestructures and sitesin Kentucky. Its members, contributors, volunteers, and supporters come from all social and economiestrata. Sons of Confederate ‘Veterans, Kentucky Division, Inc,, also serves as an educational resource for architecture Jand history students, and for preservation professionals and advocates. Sons of Confederate Veterans, Kentucky Division, Inc., and its individual member: have a recognizable interest in the aesthetic and cultural well-being of Kentucky, and i {the preservation and maintenance of Louisville's Confederate Monument. The efforts of their officers, staff, and volunteers, invests the Sons of Confederate Veterans, Kentuck; Division, Inc,, with a pecuniary or property right in Louisville's Confederate Monument, ‘Sons of Confederate Velorans ta vs, Mavor Grea Fischer, ta, Page 6 of 2620 au 22 23 24 (45). The actions of the Defendants have resulted, or will result, in an irreparable injury in fact” to the Plaintiffs’ aesthetic, cultural and environmental well-being, as well as their property rights and liberty interests. FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION VIOLATION OF THE NATIONAL HISTORIC PRESERVATION ACT (16) Louisville's Confederate Monument was listed on the National Register of Historic Places in 1997 (https://www.nps.gov/state/ky/index.him?program=all) In 16 U.S. Code § 470, the “National Historic Preservation Act,” the Congress found and) declared, inter alia: (a) the spirit and direction of the Nation are founded upon and reflected in its historic heritage; (2) the historical and cultural foundations of the Nation should be preserved as a living part of our community life and development in order to give a sense of orientation to the American people; (g) historic properties significant to the Nation’s heritage are being lost or substantially altered, often inadvertently, with increasing frequency; (4) the preservation of this irreplaceable heritage is in the public interest so that its vital legacy of cultural, educational, aesthetic, inspirational, economic, and energy benefits will be maintained and enriched for future generations of Americans... Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act mandates federal agencies undergo a review process for all federally funded and permitted projects that will impact sites listed on, or eligible for listing on, the National Register of Historie Places Specifically it requires the federal ageney to "take into account” the effect a project may have on historic properties. It allows interested parties an opportunity to comment on th potential impact projects may have on significant archaeological or historic sites. The} ‘Sons of Confederate Veterans, eta, vs, Mavor Grea Fischer, ele, Page 7 of 25rr 12 13 a4 16 vw 1a 1s 26 a 28 ‘main purpose for the establishment of the Section 106 review process is to minimiz potential harm and damage to historic properties. (17) The Defendants’ proposed actions are a violation of the National Histori Preservation Act, 54 U.S.C. § goo1ot et seq. ‘The NHPA is applicable to all federal construction financing, Congress enacted the NPA to encourage historic preservation i the United States in both federal and federally assisted projects, and to assure tha expenditure of federal funds would not adversely affect properties designated a: historically or architecturally significant. Pursuant to 54 U.S.C. §306108, still common, referred to as § 106, federal agencies are obligated to assess and take into account the effect of any “undertaking” on any historie property. Upon information, Plaintiffs believe that Defendants plan to use federal funds to pay for the removal and destruction of the Confederate Monument, and the re-routing] of Third Street around the monument’s current site. The area around the Confederate| Monument was improved with federal, Kentucky state, and University of Louisville} funds on November 17, 2008, with the Kentucky state government using $1.6 million of| federal funds and the university spending $403,000. Plaintiffs seek injunctive relief] from this Court, to allow sufficient time for Plaintiffs to notify federal authorities of these| plans, and to request an administrative review. Plaintiffs are entitled to Judgment ordering Defendants to desist in their plans to remove the Confederate Monument, until a proper § 106 review is completed. ‘Sons of Confederate Veorans, et vs. Mayor Grea Fischer, a, Page 8 of 26to an a2 13 20 aL 22 23 2a 25 26 a 28 SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION VIOLATION OF KENTUCKY LAW (18) Upon information and belief, Plaintiffs allege that the planned actions of MAYOR FISCHER to dismantle, remove, and destroy the Confederate Monument are in| violation of Kentucky law prohibiting the desecration of venerated objects. KRS 525.110 provid DESECRACTION OF VENERATED OBJECTS Desecration of venerated objects, second degree. (4) person is guilty of desecration of venerated objects in the second degree when he intentionally: (a) Desecrates any public monument or object or place of worship; or (b) Desectates in a public place the national or state flag or other patriotic or religious symbol which is an object of veneration by the public or a substantial segment thereof. (2) Desecration of venerated objects in the second degree is a Class A misdemeanor. (49) Upon information and belief, Plaintiffs allege that the planned actions of MAYOR FISCHER to dismantle, remove, and destroy the Confederate Monument are in] violation of the Kentucky Military Heritage Act. The 2002 session of the Generall |Assembly of the Commonwealth of Kentucky enacted the Kentucky Military Heritage| Act which created a new section of KRS 171 and established the Kentucky Military] Heritage Commission as an independent ageney of the Commonwealth of Kentucky and attached it to the Kentucky Heritage Council for administrative and support purposes. ‘Sons of Confederate Veorane, et al, vs. Mavor Goa Flecher, fa, Page 9 of 26au 22 23 24 25 KRS 171.780-788 provides: KENTUCKY MILITARY HERITAGE COMMISSION 171.780 Definitions for KRS 171.780 to 171.788. As used in KRS 171.780 to KRS 171.788, unless the context otherwise requires: (a) "Commission" means the Kentucky Military Heritage Commission. (2)"Military heritage" means any peacetime, wartime, or other military activity engaged in by any or all of the thirteen (13) original colonies prior to the creation of the United States, activities engaged in by the United States, activities engaged in by the Confederate States of America, and activities of the Kentucky Militia, the Kentucky National Guard, the Kentucky Air National Guard, and any other military, quasi military, or partisan unit operating under the jurisdiction of the Commonwealth, or which operated within the Commonwealth. It includes, butis not limited to, the activities of any person who was bom in Kentucky, who was a resident of Kentucky, or whose remains are interred in’ Kentucky as well as the activities of formal or informal military units, paid or volunteer. (3)"Military heritage site” means any historie geographic site of military heritage significance declared as such by the commission, pursuant to KRS. 471.782, 171.784, and 171.786. (4) "Military heritage object” means any building, fortification, statue, monument, marker, work of art, flag, aircraft, field piece, item of military equipment, weapon, or other physical object of military heritage significance declared as such by the commission, pursuant to KRS 171.782, 171.784, and 171.786, including but not limited to buildings, sites, and other landmarks. 171.788 Penalties of destruction or alteration. (4) Destruction, removal, sale, gift, loan, or significant alteration of a site designated as a military heritage site without the written approval of the commission or the commission's rescinding the designation of the site as a military heritage site is a Class A misdemeanor for the first offense and a Class D felony for each subsequent offense. (2) Destruction, removal, sale, gift, loan, or significant alteration of an object designated as a military heritage object without the written approval of the commission or the commission's rescinding the designation of the object as a military heritage object is a Class A misdemeanor for the first offense and a Class D felony for each subsequent offense (3) The provision of this section shall not apply to repair, restoration, and temporary loan activities which are permitted by KRS 171.786. Sons of Confederate Veterans ea. ve Mayor Greg Fischer. etal, Page 10 of 25THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION VIOLATION OF LOUISVILLE METRO LAW (20) Upon information and belief, Plaintiffs allege that the planned actions o! MAYOR FISCHER to dismantle, remove, and destroy the Confederate Monument are in] violation of Louisville Metro Ordinances. In enacting Ordinance 50, in 1973, The Louisville Metro Council declared as a matter of public policy that the preservation, protection, perpetuation, and use of neighborhoods, areas, places, structures, and| improvements having a special or distinctive character or a special historic, aesthetic| architectural, archaeological, or cultural interest or value and which serve as visibl reminders of the history and heritage of this Metro Government, Commonwealth, ot nation is a public necessity and is required in the interest of the health, prosperity, safety, ‘welfare, and economic well-being of the people. ‘The Confederate Monument is located in the Old Louisville Historical Preservation] District. Louisville Metro Ordinances provide: § 32.252 (3) Old Louisville designated Historie Preservation Distriet §32.252 (D) No person shall make any exterior alteration to any structure or property designated a local landmark or to any property or structure located within a district without obtaining a certificate of appropriateness, issued without cost, as provided in this subchapter. § 32.256 (B) Any exterior alteration to any local landmark or to any property or structure in a district shall not be commenced by any person without obtaining a certificate of appropriateness as provided in this subchapter. Applications for certificates of appropriateness for exterior alterations other than those specified in subsection (C) of this section shall be reviewed by the staff as provided in § 32.257 of this subchapter. Sons of Confederate Veteran, otal, vs Mayor Grog Fischer, etal, Page 11 of 2620 21 22 23 2a § 32.257 APPLICATION FOR CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS. (A)_ No department or agency of the Metro Government shall issue any building permit, certificate of occupancy or other permit, license or approval for any exterior alteration to a local landmark or to any property or structure in a district unless a certificate of appropriateness for such exterior alteration has been obtained pursuant to this subchapter. (B) An application for a certificate of appropriateness shall be submitted to the Department of Codes and Regulations. The application shall include at least the following information, unless waived pursuant to subsection (C) of this section: (a) Asite plan, drawn to an appropriate scale, photographs or other presentation media showing the proposed exterior alteration in the context of property lines, adjacent structures, streets, sidewalks, and the like. (2) Plans, elevations and other drawings, drawn to appropriate scale, and a complete description of the materials to be used, as may be necessary to fully explain the exterior alteration. Inaddition to the above information, an application for demolition or new construction shall contain information establishing that the property cannot be put to a reasonable beneficial use without the approval of the proposed work or if income-producing property, information establishing that the applicant cannot obtain a reasonable return from the property without the approval of the proposed work. (©) Applicants may seek review of a proposal prior to making formal application pursuant to subsection (B) of this section at a pre-application conference. At the conference, the staff may discuss with the applicant the proposed exterior alteration and applicable guidelines, and provide information about the district, its goals and objectives, and the review process. The staff, at the request of an applicant, may call a meeting of a subcommittee of the Commission and representatives of appropriate Committee or permitting agencies. Atthis meeting the applicant can discuss with the subcommittee members his proposed exterior alteration, his concepts, and receive information necessary to submit the application. The staff may agree to waive certain of the requirements set out in subsection (B) of this section if it is determined that such requirements are not necessary for review of the application pursuant to this subchapter. (D) Within two working days of receipt of an application determined by staff to be complete, the staff shall classify the application as requiring either staff review or Committee review. (E) An application classified as requiring staff review shall be reviewed by the staff who shall prepare a written decision supported by a finding of fact based upon the guidelines which shall approve the application, approve the application with conditions, or deny the application. If the application is approved or approved with conditions, the applicant shall be issued a certificate of appropriateness. ‘Sons of Confederate Vtorans, et el, ve. Mavor Greg Fischer, ot al, Page 12 of 26(F) An application classified as requiring committee review shall be reviewed by the committee having jurisdiction. The application shall first be reviewed by the staff to determine if the proposed exterior alterations are in compliance with the guidelines and the application shall then be forwarded. to the committee with the staff's written recommendation to either approve the application, approve the application with conditions or to deny the application. (G) The applicant and the owners of the real property abutting the property or structure which is the subject of the application shall be sent by first class mail, written notice of the date, time and location of the meeting of the committee at which the application shall be considered. The notice shall be sent no later than seven days prior to the date of the meeting. A notice of the pending application shall be placed on the property or on or near the structure which is the subject of the application by the staff at least seven days prior to the date of the meeting, (1) The meeting of the committee scheduled to review an application shall constitute a public hearing on such application. The staff shall present a written recommendation prepared in accordance with subsection (F) of this section. The applicant shall present to the Committee such information as is relevant to review of the application. Interested parties shall have the right to testify either orally or in writing, subject to the right of the Chairman to limit repetitious testimony and to exclude irrelevant testimony. (D The Committee shall make a decision based upon a written finding of fact, which shall approve the application, approve the application with conditions, deny the application, or defer consideration of the application until a later meeting of the Committee. If the application is approved or approved with conditions, the applicant shall be issued a certificate of appropriateness. Any application which fails to obtain at least three votes or the votes of a majority of the members present, whichever is greater, for approval or conditional approval shall be deemed to be denied. (J) The staff and the Committee shall, in their decision making capacities, each make a written finding of fact based upon the information presented which supports a written conclusion that the application demonstrates or fails to demonstrate that the proposed exterior alteration is in compliance with the guidelines, (K) _ Any applicant, whose application is denied by the staff or a committee, and any person or entity claiming to be injured or aggrieved by any decision made by the staff or a Committee, may appeal the decision to the Commission. The appeal shall be in writing and shall fully state the reasons why the appeal is sought. «An appeal shall be filed within 30 days of, the date of the decision. Upon the receipt by the staff of a timely appeal, the staff shall schedule a meeting of the Commission to consider the appeal. Notice of the meeting shall be mailed to the applicant, the property owner, the appellant, and other parties of record, by first class mail, at least seven days prior to the date of the meeting. At the meeting to consider the appeal, the Commission shall review the application and the record of the prior ‘Sone of Confederate Veterans et evs. Mavor Greg Fischer etal, Page 13 of 2610 cr a2 43 14 18 13 20 20 28 proceedings and, at the discretion of the Chairman, may take additional testimony from the applicant, the property owner, appellant, or other nterested parties for the purpose of supplementing the existing record or for the introduction of new information. Upon review of the record and any supplemental or new information presented at the meeting, the Commission shall make a written determination that the decision shall be upheld or overturned. A decision of the staff or the Committee shall be overturned by the Commission only upon the written finding that the staff or Committee was clearly erroneous as to a material finding of fact related to whether the proposed exterior alteration complied with the guidelines. ‘When the Commission overturns a denial of an application, it shall approve the application, or approve the application with conditions. Any member of the Commission who voted on the application when it was considered by the Committee shall not vote on the question of whether the decision of the Committee shall be upheld or overturned. (L) An applicant whose application for demolition or new construction has been denied by the Committee, may request an economic hardship exemption from compliance with one or more of the guidelines which constituted the basis of the denial of the application pursuant to this paragraph. The request for the exemption shall be in writing and shall be filed with the Commission within ten days of the decision of the Committee. The Commission shall review the documentation and evidence presented before the Committee relevant to determining whether the applicant qualifies for an economic hardship exemption and such relevant evidence presented to it by the applicant or other interested parties. The Commission shall conduct a public hearing on the proposed hardship exemption. Notice of the hearing shall be sent to the applicant and other parties of record, by first class mail, at least seven days prior to the date of the hearing, At the hearing, the Commission shall receive information to supplement the record concerning whether the applicant qualifies for an economic hardship exemption from one or more of the guidelines applicable to the application. ‘The Commission may require the applicant to submit findings from one or more persons determined by the Commission to have expertise in real estate and development who are knowledgeable in real estate economics in general and, more specifically in the economics of renovation, redevelopment and rehabilitation, to review the documentation submitted in accordance with §32.257(B)(2) and this section, Within 60 days of the first regular Commission meeting after the applicant's request is filed, the Commission shall render a decision either granting or denying the applicant's request for an economic hardship exemption from compliance with one or more of the guidelines. The decision shall be based upon a written findings of fact. The applicant shall have the burden of showing that the application qualifies for an economic hardship exemption. The Commission shall grant an economic hardship exemption only if it finds that the applicant has demonstrated through a preponderance of the evidence that: Sons of Confedorale Veterans eal vs, Mavor Groa Fischer etal, Page 14 of 26as 16 uw ae a9 20 21 26 2 28 (a) With respect to an application involving a non-income producing structure or property, the property or structure cannot be put to any reasonable beneficial use according to the guidelines adopted by the Commission for economic hardship without the approval of the application. (2) With respect to an application involving an income-producing structure or property, the applicant cannot obtain any reasonable return from the property or strueture without the approval of the application, (M)_ The Commission shall send a copy of the decision and the findings of fact to the applicant. If the Commission denies the request for the economic hardship exemption, the denial of the application shall be final. If the Commission grants the request for the economic hardship exemption, the Commission, within go days of the decision, shall approve the application or approve the application with conditions and issue a certificate of appropriateness for the proposed exterior alteration. Notwithstanding the hardship exemption, an applicant shall be required to comply with all guidelines applicable to the proposed exterior alteration other than the guidelines to which the hardship exemption applies (N) If, after an applicant has obtained a certificate of appropriateness, the proposed work is amended, the applicant shall submit an amended application to the staff who shall make a determination that the amendment has_no significant affect or that the application as amended requires additional review. Review of an amended application shall follow the same procedure as provided herein for an original application. Upon a determination by the staff that the amended application requires review, the previously issued certificate of appropriateness may be suspended, at the discretion of the staff, pending the review of the amended application. Upon information and belief, Plaintiffs allege that the planned actions of MAYO! FISCHER to dismantle, remove, and destroy the Confederate Monument are in violatioy of Louisville Metro Ordinances §32.250, et seq. WHEREFORE, PLAINTIFFS RESPECTFULLY DEMAND: (21) Plaintiffs demand a Temporary Restraining Order, a Temporary Injunction, and a Permanent Injunction issue herein, enjoining and preventing Defendants from! Sons of Confederate Veterans etal, vs, Mayor Grog Fischer eta, Page 15 of 2618 is 20 au 23 24 28 26 an 28 removing, moving, disassembling, altering, destroying, placing into storage or otherwise making any changes to the Confederate Monument, during the pendency of this litigation. (21) Plaintiffs demand Judgment against all Defendants, declaring that efforts o the part of Defendants to remove the Confederate Monument are in violation of Federal, Kentucky state, and Louisville Metro law. (22) Plaintiffs demand Judgment against all Defendants, joint and several, to compensate them for their reasonable attorney fees, and for the costs of this Action, (23) Plaintiffs demand the right to supplement all pleadings when additional facts become known to Plaintiffs, the right to supplement the names and addresses of unknown Defendants as they become known to Plaintiffs, and any and all other relief to which] Plaintiffs may appear to be entitled. Respectfully submitted, ‘Thomas A. MeAdam, IIL J. Andrew White Attorneys for Plaintifis 2950 Breckenridge Lane, Suite 9 Louisville, Kentucky 40220 (502) 584-7255 FAX: 585-2025 thomas@meadam.com KBA: 48200 ‘Sons of Confederate Velrans, ot dl, ve. Mavor Greg Fisher, a, Page 16 of 26,