As we reported here, in late July, the Ohio Elections Commission made findings against Jonathan White from Dayton and his misnamed Cincinnatians for Jobs Now (misnamed because Mr. White testified that the group included no “Cincinnatians”).
Today, our client in that case, Christopher Smitherman reports, here, that the Ohio Elections Commisison has written to Ohio Attorney General Mike DeWine asking that he pursue enforcement of the subpoena against Mr. RIchardson, including “potential criminal penalties.”
As many of our clients and blog readers know, we are proud to serve as local counsel for the only certified class action in the nation by Tea Party groups challenging the constitutionality and legality of the IRS’ actions in targeting Tea Party groups for additional delay and scrutiny in their tax exemption applications.
There are several other cases that have been filed, I believe all in the D.C. District Court, challenging the indefensible conduct of the IRS during that period that started in 2010.
Friday, the D.C. Court of Appeals issued yet another scathing opinion that the IRS lost in one of those cases, pointing out how completely illegal and unconstitutional the IRS’ conduct was, and how procedurally they have tied up the litigation in endless and pointless arguments and appeals.
Some of the language in this decision deriding the IRS’ claims of cessation of the illegal conduct, leading to their argument of mootness, is fun to read (pp. 16-21).
We wrote here about our important win against a state statute that harasses non-incumbent candidates for public office when they fail to place the word “for” between their name and the office sought. It was a silly statute, and regulatory and enforcement scheme, until you realize how pernicious their work really was.
This case is the third in a series of important wins against the statutes enforced by the Ohio Elections Commission that for years has resulted in endless harassment and intimidation of candidates for public office engaging in political speech. Two of these cases went all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court where we attained a reversal of the 6th Circuit and District Court decisions..
The OEC has basically hung out the “out of business” sign on more than 3/4 of its work regulating elections thanks to these important cases.
Science Magazine has a thoughtful article that just came out today about the policy and practice of the University of Cincinnati to segregate male and female students from one another in science labs.
“Women and men should not be working together in science,” according to Teaching Assistant Mohamud El Demery. This policy was ratified when Professor Larry Bortner met with our client, 19-year-old Casey Helmicki and confirmed it was the department’s practice.
Cincinnati City Council member Christopher Smitherman
This firm has been pleased to represent Cincinnati City Council member Christopher Smitherman in an action before the Ohio Elections Commission regarding some $300,000 secretly spent during the 2013 City Council election targeted towards the defeat of Smitherman.
In that year, Smitherman was running for reelection. Smitherman is African American and was then the President of the Cincinnati Chapter of the NAACP. Mysteriously, ads began appearing on Black radio accusing Smitherman of selling out the African American community and encouraging people to reject Smitherman at the polls. Lots and lots of ads. These were followed by printed flyers with similar messaging distributed primarily in the African American community. The ads were placed by a group called “Cincinnatians for Jobs Now.”
However, Cincinnatians for Jobs Now had never existed before. No one had ever heard of it. And no one knew of its members. Further, it filed no campaign finance reports as required by Ohio law to reveal its donors or the expenditure of its funds. They had spent hundreds of thousands of dollars secretly in violation of Ohio law.
This firm was retained after the election to bring a formal action before the Ohio Elections Commission to pursue this matter.
The secretive group claims that it is no group at all and included no one from Cincinnati, but rather was a single individual named Jonathan White from Dayton. White testified both in his deposition and at trial before the Ohio Elections, incredibly, that he set up a P.O. Box for the new PAC, but told no one of the P.O. Box address. Magically, several checks signed by union leader Rob Richardson, Sr. totaling $300,000 then showed up in that P.O. Box. This fiction was important for Cincinnatians for Jobs Now to maintain inasmuch as cooperation between two or more citizens constitutes a PAC that must report. The failure to do so is a criminal violation.
The OEC refused to issue to Rob Richardson, Sr. a subpoena to force his deposition. They did issue two subpoenas to force his participation in a hearing before the OEC, and yet, illegally, he refused to appear.
In the end, the OEC found that Cincinnatians for Jobs Now and Jonathan White had engaged in illegal conduct, ordered them to file their campaign finance reports and levied a $15,000 fine against them.
It took nearly three years to bring the matter to a hearing and to arrive at this conclusion.
Our thanks go to attorney Curt Hartman and to a steadfast client, Christopher Smitherman, who both saw this matter through to a successful end.
The Cincinnati Enquirer has this story on the case this morning.
The 10th District Court of Appeals today ruled in favor of our client in Magda v. Ohio Elections Commission, a case dating all the way back to the 2010 election.
That year, our client was a candidate for Ashtabula County Treasurer. In most of her campaign signs and literature, she used he word “for” between the words “Kathy Magda” and “Ashtabula County Treasurer,” but on one piece of literature prepared by her husband, she omitted the word “for,” so the title she had not then earned appeared just after her name. That has historically been the basis an automatic finding of a violation of O.R.C. § 3517.21(B)(1).
Thus, when a political opponent filed such a Complaint — even absent any evidence of intent to mislead or that anyone was in fact misled — the Ohio Elections Commission dutifully found that a violation existed.
Our firm challenged that finding in an administrative appeal coupled with a suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for violations of Ms. Magda’s rights under the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution.
[It is important to note that coupling of an Administrative Appeal under O.R.C. Chapter 119 along with a constitutional challenge under 42 U.S.C. §1983 is a somewhat unique approach in Ohio Courts. This decision provides solid support for such a challenge.]
In 2014, the Franklin County Common Pleas Court upheld the OEC decision and rejected our client’s constitutional claims. It was that decision that was on appeal before the 10th District Court of Appeals.
The 10th District decision was a resounding victory for our client, both overturning the finding of a violation of O.R.C. § 3517.21(B)(1), but also declaring the statute to be unconstitutional and instructing the trial court to enter an order permanently enjoining its enforcement.
Once again, our lead appellate attorney, Curt Hartman, led the team that won this effort. Chris Finney handled the oral argument at the 10th District Court of Appeals.
This nearly six year journey — involving novel approaches to the law — is yet another example of how we “make a difference” for our clients.
As we reported here, in June, after five years of dithering, the Federal Elections Commission finally rendered a fine against former Congressman Jean Schmidt and the Turkish Coalition of America in a case initiated by Finney Law Firm attorneys.
That FEC case addressed a violation of Federal Election law wherein the Turkish Coalition of America illegally funneled more than $650,000 in legal fees to Congressman Schmidt, then a sitting member of the House Foreign Affairs Committee. The Turkish Coalition of America is devoted to advancing the interests of the Turkish government before U.S. government officials and the media.
Last week, the FEC released more documents relating to that investigation and finding of a violation of Federal law, including a report from staff attorneys that concluded that Schmidt’s violation was willful, a conclusion that could have yielded criminal charges if adopted by the FEC.
Today, Bloomberg BNA reports on how commissioners deadlocked in reaching that conclusion, and settled on the more modest findings against Schmidt and the TCA. Read that story here.
________
This case highlights how Finney Law Firm attorneys, through creativity, patience, persistence and an aggressive approach to the practice of law could “make a difference” for our client, and for our nation.
Chris Finney appeared on 550 AM WKRC radio last week to address our new litigation against the University of Cincinnati arising from their practice of segregating male students from female students in physics labs.
We have filed suit on behalf of 19-year-old student Casey Helmicki who was subject to that discrimination, alleging that the same violates the Fourteenth amendment to the US Constitution and Title IX of the US Code, which prohibits discrimination against women in the provision of educational opportunities.
Today’s Washington Post carries an excellent opinion piece (here) from an attorney specializing in security clearance case. In there he dispassionately explains the dual system of justice (or perhaps a spectrum of justice) based upon the relative power of the individual accused of the security violation.
Here is the sad punchline in his op ed:
The higher-profile the individual, the less likelihood, in most circumstances, of sanctions relating to security issues. In short, current security clearance policy factors in the importance of an individual in deciding whether to revoke a security clearance.
He concludes:
The next president should overhaul the system so that there is consistency for all clearance holders, whatever their station in life.
Article has been updated 7/7/16 at 10:08 PM to add new media links below:
Friday, the Finney Law Firm filed suit in Federal District Court to stop the policy, practice and procedure of the University of Cincinnati of systematically discriminating against female students in science labs, specifically by categorically and forcibly segregating them from male students. The teacher’s assistant who victimized our client said it this way:
“women shouldn’t be working with men in science.”
Our client is 19-year old Casey Helmicki, a double major in Neuroscience and Chemistry with hopes to attend medical school. She was victimized not only by this clueless or malevolent Teacher’s Aide, but by a University who up the chain of command refused to correct its unconstitutional and illegal policies.
She first complained to the physics professor who oversaw the class. He insisted the segregation was in fact the policy of the University. She then complained to the department head. The policy did not change. Then, the matter was reported to the Title IX office of the University. The Title IX coordinator ratified and adopted the discrimination as the official policy of the University. Finally, she hired counsel, and we complained to the General Counsel’s office at the University. They investigated and further ratified the discriminatory practices.
This suit is the only hope that young female students have at UC to change the unconstitutional and illegal practice of sex segregation in science labs.
