Finney Law Firm’s lawsuit on behalf of Brittney Heitman against Hamilton County Clerk of Courts Aftab Pureval has been remanded back to the Hamilton County Common Pleas Court.

Readers will recall that Heitman filed suit in August to have a non-disparagement clause declared unenforceable under Ohio law. Heitman was fired from the clerk of court’s office shortly after Pureval took office. Heitman filed suit in Hamilton County Common Pleas Court, but Pureval’s attorneys argued the case – premised upon the Ohio State Constitution – should be decided by a federal judge because the Ohio State Constitution mirrors the United States Constitution in some respects.

Nearly three months after Heitman’s motion, and three days after Pureval lost his election for congress, Judge Dlott granted our motion to remand the case, finding that – as we argued – the federal court did not have jurisdiction over the case.

The case now returns to Judge Robert Ruehlman.

[scribd id=392779326 key=key-EQQfisKKB4uhCe4NY9Sy mode=scroll]

Finney Law Firm has filed a motion to dismiss the appeal filed by Cincinnati City Councilmembers Greg Landsman, PG Sittenfeld, Wendell Young, Tamaya Dennard, and Chris Seelbach in the Open Meetings lawsuit surrounding the “gang of five” illegal meetings that were uncovered by our client Mark Miller.

The councilmembers have appealed Judge Ruehlman’s discovery order to produce documents responsive to our discovery requests. The filing of the appeal was discussed here. You can read about our motion for contempt for failing to produce the requested discovery here.

The appeal should be dismissed in this instance because the Councilmembers did not properly raise the issue of privilege to the trial court, thus prohibiting them from now raising the issue to the Court of Appeals.

We hope for a swift resolution of this matter so that our client can obtain the requested discovery documents and proceed with the case.

Learn more about Finney Law Firm’s public interest practice here.

[scribd id=392617104 key=key-A1Xe7o8OiLFB97nYdznV mode=scroll]

Today Finney Law Firm filed a motion seeking to have Judge Ruehlman hold Cincinnati City Councilmembers Greg Landsman, PG Sittenfeld, Wendell Young, Tamaya Dennard, and Christopher Seelbach in contempt for failing to comply with his Discovery Order issued in the open meetings lawsuit filed on behalf of Mark Miller. Read the motion below or here.

Judge Ruehlman ordered the councilmembers  to produce the emails and text messages that were requested as part of the discovery process in a lawsuit alleging violations of Ohio’s Open Meetings Act. The documents were to be turned over by November 2. However, the councilmembers have failed to comply or seek a stay of the order. Meaning that they are in contempt of the Judge’s Order.

Failure to comply with a judicial order disrupts the orderly administration of justice and is a serious offense. This is entirely inappropriate conduct from elected officials. We hope that Judge Ruehlman orders them to appear in person so that they can explain themselves directly to the Court.

[scribd id=392418326 key=key-0TluJGkz6oXfIbPkwqPT mode=scroll]

Just days before Cincinnati City Councilmembers Greg Landsman, PG Sittenfeld, Tamaya Dennard, Wendell Young, and Chris Seelbach (the self-proclaimed “Gang of Five”) are due to produce emails and text messages in response to our discovery requests, their attorneys have filed a notice of appeal.

Last week Judge Ruehlman ordered the Gang of Five to provide responses to our discovery requests by Friday, November 2. This appeal seems aimed solely at delay and confusing the issues between two parallel pieces of litigation brought by Finney Law Firm on behalf of our client, local activist Mark Miller.

We will fight vigorously to defeat this latest effort to stall this litigation. Read the Notice of Appeal here.

In a unanimous per curiam opinion, the Ohio Supreme Court ruled that even when there is a recent arm’s-length sale, appraisal evidence of value should be considered to contradict the sale price.

In Spirit Master Funding IX, L.L.C. v. Cuyahoga Cty. Bd. of Revision, Slip Opinion No. 2018-Ohio-4302, the subject property was sold twice in 2014, one in August for $2,925,880; and again in December for $3,439,0290. The property was not subject to a lease at the time of the first sale, but was subject to a 20 year lease at the time of the second.

The Board of Tax Appeals adopted the August sale price as the true value, disregarding an appraiser’s opinion that the property’s true value as of January 1, 2014 was $1,535,000. The Board of Tax Appeals accepted the school board’s argument that the property owner did not dispute that the August 2014 sale was arm’s length, believing that question to be dispositive.

“The school board’s argument ignores the fact that appraisal evidence can both attack a sale price as evidence of true value and provide affirmative evidence of value in its own right” Spirit Master Funding IX, Slip Opinion No. 2018-Ohio-4302, ¶ 9.

The case has been remanded to the Board of Tax Appeals to give consideration to the testimony and report of the property owner’s appraiser.

This decision continues a trend at the Ohio Supreme Court to give force to the recent changes to Ohio’s property valuation regime.

[scribd id=391703744 key=key-quEt4LYEdGFPOQsW6gIS mode=scroll]

The Ohio Supreme Court has ordered the Ohio Elections Commission to file its response to Aftab Pureval’s emergency motion to halt the investigation into his campaign finance violations by noon on Friday, October 26, 2018.

In addition to the filing at the Ohio Supreme Court, Pureval has filed yet another motion with the Ohio Elections Commission seeking to delay the hearing until after the election. Pureval is desperate to prevent the voters from scrutinizing his campaign spending before the election.

The Order from the Ohio Supreme Court and the latest filing at the Ohio Elections Commission are below and available online here and here.

Read more about Pureval’s efforts to avoid accountability in this matter here, here, and here.

[scribd id=391554552 key=key-8tlJQBFvfE52DYnNYFrE mode=scroll]

[scribd id=391554882 key=key-FYFu2fi2K27jm5fhoAxT mode=scroll]

Fresh off a loss at the Tenth District Court of Appeals, Aftab Pureval has filed an appeal with the Ohio Supreme Court seeking to halt the Ohio Elections Commission investigation into campaign finance violations by his Clerk of Courts Campaign.

This will be the Pureval’s fifth attempt at halting the investigation; having lost this argument three times before the Elections Commission and once at the Court of Appeals.

It appears that Pureval is desperate to avoid sunshine and public scrutiny of his campaign finance violations.

Read the notice of Appeal below and  here and Motion for Expedited Proceedings here.

[scribd id=391512617 key=key-AUmX4ltuRpSlbeYV8auJ mode=scroll]

As with many other states, Ohio now permits its citizens to consume marijuana legally if it is validly prescribed by a physician for a medical condition. The question arises as to whether this has any implications for employment. Are employees who use medically prescribed marijuana protected from discharge for their marijuana usage? Are employers still permitted to have and enforce a “drug-free workplace” policy if it prohibits the consumption of legal, medically prescribed marijuana?

The legislation establishing Ohio’s medical marijuana law expressly protects employers in several ways. Employers are not required to permit or accommodate an employee’s use, possession, or distribution of medical marijuana. They may refuse to hire an individual due to his or her use, possession, or distribution of medical marijuana, and may discharge or otherwise discipline an existing employee for such use, possession, or distribution.

Employers may also establish or maintain a formal drug-free workplace program. And an employer may still discharge an employee for “just cause” if the employee uses medical marijuana in violation of the employer’s drug-free workplace policy. Moreover, the employee will be ineligible for unemployment compensation if the termination resulted from a violation of the employer’s drug-free workplace policy.

The administrator of workers’ compensation may still grant rebates and discounts on premium rates to employers that participate in a drug-free workplace program, and an employer maintains the right to defend against workers’ compensation claims where use of medical marijuana contributes to or results in injury.

Employers and employees should be aware, however, that the usage of medically prescribed marijuana can intersect with federal and state laws that prohibit disability discrimination, and that require employers to reasonably accommodate employee disabilities. If an employee uses medically prescribed marijuana as a result of having a disability, an employer considering an adverse employment action against such an employee must make it clear that the action is based on the employee’s marijuana usage, and not on the underlying disability that led to that usage.

This can be a very tricky area for employers and employees to navigate. If you have questions about a particular situation, or need help in crafting an appropriate employment policy, it is important to seek the guidance of a qualified employment attorney. And be careful out there!

The Hamilton County Board of Elections released a transcript of this mornings meeting. Read the transcript on scribd here or below.

Also released was a new filing by the Aftab Pureval campaign – the unredacted checks showing that the $16,500 payment to GBA Strategies – a DC polling firm – was indeed for polling, not “consulting.” View the checks here or below.

These documents prove the truth of the complaint filed by Finney Law Firm with the Ohio Elections Commission and highlight the need for a full investigation by the Ohio Elections Commission.

The Ohio Elections Commission will hold its probable cause hearing Thursday, September 20, at 10 a.m. in the Riffe Center in Columbus, Ohio. We look forward to a full adjudication of our complaint.

[scribd id=389019696 key=key-VS2cKJSocVRDEjl6dLRA mode=scroll]

[scribd id=389020381 key=key-C1F87086Nlqpb6nTxlSa mode=scroll]

 

The Cincinnati Enquirer is reporting that the Hamilton County Board of Elections is opening its own investigation into Aftab Pureval’s campaign finance reporting, and the history of the redactions to checks filed by his campaign.

The controversy has erupted in response to Pureval’s claim that a Board of Elections employees made redactions to his campaign.

Now it appears that in fact, a Democrat Board of Elections employee did illegally alter public records to prevent disclosure of the information contained on the memo line of one check in particular.

One check, paid to GBA Strategies out of Washington, D.C. appears to read “Poll…” beneath the redaction. Such an expenditure by the clerk of courts campaign (nearly three years before the election) would be quite unusual. It is believed that the payment was made for polling done for Pureval’s congressional race, a violation of state and federal campaign finance laws.

The Board of Elections sole purpise to create and maintain records – be they campaign finance records, or more integral to our system of governance, election records. There are now very real questions about the integrity of the Board of Elections recordkeeping functions. The Board of Elections must determine whether Pureval’s campaign was involved in the decision to illegally redact his campaign finance filings, so that Hamilton County voters can be confident in the results reported by the Hamilton County Board of Elections.

The Hamilton County Board of Elections will hold a special emergency meeting on Wednesday, September 19, 2018 at 11 a.m. to investigate further, That meeting will be at 4700 Smith Road, Cincinnati, Ohio 45212. The public and media is invited to attend.

Read the Ohio Elections Commission Complaint here.

Read Pureval’s response, including the statement that the Board of Election redacted the memo line here.