an IS TRIC: ; OEE a mtona cone IN THE | COUNTY Nov 9 42020 "CSB WARREN OKLAHOMA SECOND AMENDMENT —_— ASSOCIATION, an Oklahoma entity; COUNTY COMMISSIONER KEVIN CALVEY; and TOM VINEYARD, an individual, Petitioners, v OKLAHOMA COUNTY CRIMINAL JUSTICE AUTHORITY, in its official capacity only; and ATTORNEY GENERAL MICHAEL Case No. CV-2020-2065 HUNTER, in his official capacity only, Hearn set Respondents, Novemha- 30 2020 @ 104s DAVID PRATER, DISTRICT ATTORNEY OF OKLAHOMA COUNTY, Intervenor. BRIEF OF JAIL TRUST IN OPPOSITION TO STAY L INTRODUCTION The petitioners move to stay proceedings in this case because there might be legislation passed which might affect something of relevance to this case. The motion should be denied. The petitioners’ hypothetical scenario provides no grounds for the petitioners to ask for a stay, particularly because the petitioners cannot show this Court has jurisdiction of this matter, and particularly since the petitioners are seeking a stay of their own lawsuit Will the legislation cited by the petitioners pass? It did not pass last year. But, of course, it might pass in 2021. Will the final version of the bill contain language addressing the petitioners’ political views concerning ICE detainers? Who knows? In any event, every case in this courthouse might be affected by legislation with might pass sometime in the future. That does not mean allthose cases should be stayed. Further, even if the Legislature passes a bill as envisioned by these petitioners, that bill could be relevant to the petitioners” dispute with the protesters they refer to in Paragraph 33 of the Amended Petition (“the Petition”), but the petitioners have made no attempt to make them parties to this case. ‘There are two substantive motions pending before the Court. One is the Motion to Dismiss of the Oklahoma County Criminal Justice Authority (“Jail Trust”), The motion is not based on a dispute about ICE detainers, but on a dispute about whether the petitioners can establish jurisdiction, and, if so, whether the petitioners have even stated a valid claim, The other substantive motion is a Motion to Dismiss by the District Attorney's Office, with which the Respondents agree, showing the petitioners are not authorized to litigate to these claims. The petitioners should not be allowed to avoid the two Motions to Dismiss by obtaining a stay of their own lawsuit ‘This brief will show: 1. As shown in the Motion to Dismiss, the petitioners have no standing to bring this lawsuit and therefore have no standing to ask this Court for a stay. As shown in the Motion to Dismiss, the petitioners have not stated a valid claim, and thus there is no valid lawsuit to be stayed. 3. The petitioners’ argument that there might be legislation concerning ICE detainers at Oklahoma jails is irrelevant to the issues before the Court. As the Jail Trust explicitly argues in its Motion to Dismiss, the issues do not revolve around petitioners’ political interest in ICE detainers, but rather this Court’s jurisdiction and whether the petitioners can state a valid claim, 4, Further, the controversy concerning ICE detainers arose when protesters opposed the position of the BOC. However, despite referring to the protesters in paragraph 33 of their Petition, the petitioners made no attempt to name any of them as parties to this case. 5. The petitioners’ argument based on the hypothetical that there might be legislation which might contain language relating to ICE detainers cannot provide a basis to stay proceedings. 6. Lastly, it must be noted that petitioners are asking for a stay of their own lawsuit. If the petitioners want to avoid having this Court rule on the Motions to Dismiss,the petitioners’ remedy is to dismiss their case. permitted to artificially keep this case alive. The petitioners should not be |. ARGUMENT AND AUTHORIT A. NO JURISDICTION. ‘The petitioners should not be permitted to avoid a hearing on the respondents’ Motion to Dismiss. The Jail Trust has moved to dismiss this case because the petitioners have no standing to file such a case. The petitioners should not be permitted to avoid a hearing on standing by filing a Motion to Stay, which they also have no standing to file. Similarly, the D.A.’s Office has moved to dismiss because the petitioners are not authorized to litigate this case. Once again, the petitioners should not be allowed to avoid a ruling on their authority to litigate by filing a Motion to Stay which they also have no authority to litigate. Just as the petitioners cannot show this Court has jurisdiction to proceed in this matter, the petitioners cannot show this Court has jurisdiction to stay this matter. Whatever advantages the petitioners seek to gain by having this appear to be a valid lawsuit should not be artificially extended by a stay which avoids the petitioners having to face the motions to dismiss. B. NoCLamM The Jail Trust’s Motion to Dismiss further explains that the Petition in this case has not stated a valid claim, Because the BOCC cannot control the operations of the Jail Trust, which is a separate entity, and because the Trust Indenture and Lease relied upon by the petitioners expressly provide that the Jail Trust will operate independently, the petitioners have not stated a valid claim. The petitioners cannot artificially keep this case alive since there is not even a valid claim to keep alive.C. IRRELEVANT In the Motion to Dismiss of the Jail Trust, the Jail Trust is explicit that its motion does not, ask the Court to take a position on ICE detainers and how they should be handle Motion to Dismiss, filed November 13, 2020, at p. 2. So what is the relevance of the potential legislation concerning ICE detainers? As the petitioners explain, on October 5, 2020, the BOCC passed a policy that the Oklahoma County Detention Center should cooperate with Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”) and allow ICE agents access to the jail. Petition, at 4] 16. As the petitioners further explain the potential legislation would require the jail to cooperate with ICE and to allow ICE agents access to the jail. Motion to Stay, at $1. However, as the petitioners also explain, “[t]hose opposed to the BOC’ October 5 policy” disrupted the meeting by shouting and threatening legal action to stop the policy. Petition, at § 33. Most notably, for this Court, the petitioners did not name the protestors who were “opposed to the BOCC’s October 5 policy” as parties in this case. Thus, the legislation, even if it occurs as envisioned by the petitioners, simply will not address the issues which are currently pending before the Court and will instead address the BOCC’s dispute with the protestors. D. HYPOTHETICAL The Court should not impose a stay based on the hypothetical events suggested by the petitioners. The legislation suggested by the petitioners (a) might pass the Legislature in 2021 even though it failed to pass in 2020, (b) might contain language in its final version which addresses some of the petitioners’ political dispute with the protesters, and (c) might be signed by the Governor. If all of these circumstances were to become true, the bill would become law. However, this Court should not grant a stay based on the idea that all of these hypotheticals might come true, particularly since the legislation would be irrelevant in any event.Lastly, the petitioners’ argument that there might be legislation next session which impacts some issue in the lawsuit in their opinion proves too much. In every lawsuit there is the possibility that the Legislature or Congress might pass legislation which may impact on some issue in the case. That does not mean that the lawsuits cannot move forward. E. PETITIONERS’ ARE SEEKING TO STAY THEIR OWN LAWSUIT The lack of merit to the motion for stay is further apparent because the petitioners are seeking to stay their own lawsuit, If they actually wanted to wait and see what the Legislature may do, they could simply dismiss without prejudice and decide whether to refile after the Legislative Session is over. Instead, the petitioners want to have their cake and eat it too. They want this Court to allow them to claim to have a valid lawsuit while they avoid a ruling on whether they have a valid lawsuit. This Court should refuse to play. The Court should force the petitioners to the choice every other plaintiff has. If they want to have a lawsuit, they have to face scrutiny in a court of law. If they do not want to face that scrutiny, their option is to dismiss IL. ConcLUsION Ultimately, the petitioners’ request for a stay reflects merely their preference that they like the idea of having a pending lawsuit against the Jail Trust. The petitioners’ preference, for political reasons or otherwise, is insufficient to keep a lawsuit alive. As shown in the Jail Trust's Motion to Dismiss, courts address only actual cases and controversies. The petitioners should not be permitted to avoid the pending Motions to Dismiss, and the Motion to Stay should be denied DATED this 2% day of November, 2020 Respectfully submitted, U. Robert G. McCampl€ll, OBA No. 10390Paula M. Williams, OBA No. 30772 Brennan T. Barger, OBA No. 34292 GaBLEGOTWALS ‘One Leadership Square, 15" Floor 211 North Robinson Oklahoma City, OK 73102 (405) 235-5500 (405) 235-2875 (fax) ilsattise gablelass won bhaiyerur gabhekiw ven) Attorneys for Defendant Oklahoma County Criminal Justice AuthorityCERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on the 2% day of November, 2020, a true, correct, and exact copy of the above and foregoing instrument was served via email and via first-class mail on the following persons: Kevin Calvey P.O. Box 20443 ‘Oklahoma City, OK 73156 David W. Prater, District Attorney Aaron Ethrington, Assistant District Attorney 320 Robert S. Kerr, Suite 505 ‘Oklahoma City, OK 73102 Liat Miegali ff Robert G. McCamptell Paula Williams sssviat