Author Archives: Christopher P. Finney

Relating to Christopher P. Finney’s presentation on February 16th, 2017 before Cincinnati’s Lawyers’ Club entitled “Mr. Finney goes to the United States Supreme Court,” we wanted to present several links for those wanting to do further study  on the topic.

First, as background, SCOTUSblog.com exists for the purpose, in part, of compiling and presenting key links for United States Supreme Court cases, from briefs, to oral argument transcripts and audio recordings, as well as in dept commentary.  So, most of our links are just back to their site, for which we are greatly appreciative.

Some are links to original documents on the Finney Law Firm scribd.com site.

• DeWine v. Ohio Elections Commission (1978)
• Pestrak v. Ohio Elections Commission (1991)
• Ohio Democratic Party v. Ohio Elections Commission (2008)
• SCOTUS transcript of oral argument in United States v. Alvarez
• SCOTUS audio recording of oral argument in United States v. Alvarez
• SCOTUS decision in United States v. Alvarez
• Judge Susan Dlott’s District Court decision in Krikorian v. Ohio Elections Commission.
• Judge Timothy Black’s District Court decisions in Susan B. Anthony List v. Ohio Elections Commission (SBA List) (COAST)
• Judge Michael Barrett’s District Court decision in COAST v. Ohio Elections Commission.
• New York Times, Was that Twitter Blast False or Just Honest Hyperbole, by Adam Liptak, SCOTUS Reporter
• 6th Circuit’s original decision in the Susan B. Anthony List v. Ohio Elections Commission.
• Petition Susan B. Anthony List Petition for a writ of certiorari. 
• Brief of State Respondents in opposition filed in opposition to petition for writ of certiorari
• Reply of petitioners Susan B. Anthony List on on petition for writ of certiorari 
• Brief of petitioners Susan B. Anthony List
• Brief of respondents State Respondents
• Reply of petitioners Susan B. Anthony List
• SCOTUS transcript of oral argument in Susan B. Anthony List v. Ohio Elections Commission.
• SCOTUS audio recording of oral argument in Susan B. Anthony List v. Ohio Elections Commission
• SCOTUS oral opinion announcement from Justice Clarence Thomas
• SCOTUS opinion in Susan B. Anthony List v. Ohio Elections Commission 
• Second decision of Judge Timothy Black in Susan B. Anthony List v. Ohio Elections Commission
• Second decision of Judge Michael Barrett in COAST v. Ohio Elections Commission
• Second 6th Circuit decision in Susan B. Anthony List v. Ohio Elections Commission

And for some extra reading, a few Amicus Briefs from the SCOTUS case:

• The “Funniest Amicus Brief Ever:” Cato Institute and P.J. O’Rourke
• Ohio Attorney General Mike DeWine’s Brief in Support of Neither Party
• United States’ Amicus Brief

Next Thursday, Christopher P. Finney will present to Cincinnati’s Lawyer’s Club the topic “Mr. Finney goes to the United States Supreme Court,” a speech on his experiences in having a case accepted by the nation’s highest court, having it presented (another attorney made the oral argument) and winning in a unanimous ruling.

“It has been the highlight of my legal career to date has been to position a case for acceptance by the United States Supreme Court, to have it presented and to win,” said Finney.  “The experience was made all the sweeter because up until the nine Justices spoke, not a single judge, at the trial court level or at the appellate level, saw any merit in our arguments.  Strategy, persistence and a firm belief in our position prevailed.”

Within just months of forming the Finney Law Firm in 2013, we learned that one of our cases had been accepted for oral argument at the United States Supreme Court — Susan B. Anthony List v. Ohio Elections Commission.  Getting a case accepted for oral argument by the United States Supreme Court is the legal equivalent of lightning striking.  The Supreme Court typically accepts fewer than 1% of all cases for which certiorari petitions are presented, and many of those arise from either very high profile issues of great public interest or cases of statutory interpretation arising from the D.C. Circuit.  In the year in which we presented, more than 10,000 petitions for writs of certiorari were presented, and only 69 were accepted for oral argument.

The Susan B. Anthony List case challenged Ohio’s political “false claims” statute, in which the Ohio Elections Commission sits (used to sit) in judgment of whether statements made during the course of political campaigns — candidate and issue — were “false” and if so, could refer them for criminal prosecution, involving up to six months in jail.

Our legal team presented that case in April of that year, and won a unanimous ruling from the U.S. Supreme Court in June, authored by Justice Clarence Thomas.  The case as it ascended to the United States Supreme Court was merely about whether our clients had standing to challenge the subject statute.  The Supreme Court decision found that standing existed and remanded the case for further proceedings in the trial and appellate courts, where some months later our clients ultimately prevailed.

Navigating legal shoals to have a case accepted by the United States Supreme Court and positioning it most strongly for victory, including by its written and oral presentation, involve intense strategy and hard work, much like a chess game or a championship boxing match.

That experience in this one case, and two more that the firm had accepted and won on only written briefs, will be presented by Christopher P. Finney next Thursday, February 16, 2017 before Cincinnati’s Lawyers’ Club at the Montgomery Inn Boathouse at 11:30 AM.

Also presenting that same day from 12:45 to 1:45 is Cincinnati attorney Daniel Drew on Civil Asset Forfeiture Reforms.

If you want to attend, you may sign up by contacting attorney Bob Cettel at (513) 325-2279 or via email at cettel@mac.com.  The cost is $20 per CLE session for Cincinnati Lawyer Club members and $25 per session for non-members.  The cost is $30 per year to join the Cincinnati Lawyers Club.

The Cincinnati Lawyers’ Club was founded in 1920 and gathers attorneys together for civic undertakings and continuing legal education programs.  We thank them for this opportunity to present our experiences on this exciting journey to the United States Supreme Court.

Please feel free to join us that day!

We learned through a protracted and complicated process about the congressional ethics processes.  It was a case we initiated and pursued with some limited degree of success against a sitting member of Congress many years ago.

What we learned is that there are two committees in Washington that have some jurisdiction over whether members of Congress violate the ethics rules that apply to them — the Office of Congressional Ethics and the House Ethics Committee.  They have remarkable similar names, so much so that the public would be rightfully confused as to their identities and functions.

The Office of Congressional Ethics is a citizens oversight committee appointed by House leadership that more or less, on private complaints, makes “probable cause” findings for further consideration by the House Ethics Committee.  The Congressional Ethics Committee consists of members of Congress.  The Office of Congressional Ethics has a rich tradition of investigating and impartially referring meritorious matters to the House Ethics Committee for official action.  But the House Ethics Committee is notorious for being the place where all complaints against members of Congress go to die. Some members of Congress thinks the Office of Congressional Ethics is too zealous in its pursuit of members of Congress and, specifically, object to the consideration of anonymous complaints and the pursuit of frivolous matters, requiring members of Congress to expend enormous sums defending themselves.

Yesterday, the U.S House GOP caucus preliminarily voted to significantly restrain the Office of Congressional Ethics — to clip its wings.  Today, the same caucus abandoned that decision and left things as they are for now, and for a bipartisan decision on the fate of the Office to be made by the House Ethics Committee.

You may read the story of all of this by Dierdre Shesgreen of Gannett News and the Cincinnati Enquirer here.

It was hard to believe when the client told us her story.  In 2015, the University of Cincinnati told 19-year-old Casey Helmicki, a pre-med student, that men and women were not allowed to group together in physics lab.  She had even gone up the chain of command at UC to complain, to her professor, to her department chairman, and to the Title IX office, all to no avail.

We filed suit under Title IX, which prohibits sex-based discrimination in university programs,and achieved a relatively quick settlement for our client.

Today’s Cincinnati Enquirer covers the settlement today.  You may read about that here.

Chris Finney is part of a distinguished panel of speakers who will present this Thursday and Friday, December 15th and 16th, 2016 at the Millennium Hotel: “Local Government Law from Start to Finish.”

The program is aimed at educating local government officials, county, municipal and township attorneys, as well as attorneys who litigate against government entities in Ohio and federal law addressing these entities.

Topics include (i) Public employment issues, (ii) Public records, (iii) open meetings, (iv) police misconduct, (v) public bidding, (vi) code enforcement aimed at blighted properties and nuisance properties, (v) billboard law, (vi) economic development finance, (vii) taxpayer actions and fee shifting, and (viii) government attorney ethics.

Mr. Finney will join Cincinnati Law Department attorney Terrance Nestor on Friday at 2:30 PM in presenting on Taxpayer Actions and Fee Shifting.

The class runs both Thursday and Friday from 9 AM until 4:30 PM and features numerous attorneys from Cincinnati’s Law Department as well as other municipal attorneys.

You may sign up for or learn more about the program here.