Cincinnati’s self-proclaimed “Gang of Five” turned over text messages exchanged between them as part of the agreed order issued today in our litigation to expose the secret communications between the majority of the Cincinnati City Council.
Read the text messages below or online here.
[scribd id=401321119 key=key-XVyAoTdoInvX1NYKlshm mode=scroll]
Warren County Auditor Matt Nolan and the Finney Law Firm will give a presentation to the Real Estate Investor’s Association of Greater Cincinnati (REIAGC) covering the property valuation challenge process.
The correct valuation of real property can mean the difference between success and failure for residential and commercial landlords, and their tenants.
On Thursday, March 7, our attorney and Matt Nolan will discuss the procedure for bringing a challenge, issues to consider prior to bringing a challenge, and next steps if the initial challenge is not successful.
Click on this link to the REIAGC’s website for more information or to register to attend. Registration is free for members, $35.00 for non-members.
Learn more about Warren County Auditor Matt Nolan here. Learn more about Finney Law Firm’s Property Valuation practice here.
Every legal claim that a person can file in civil court is subject to a “statute of limitations.” This is the period of time that the victim of a civil wrong has, after the claim arises, to bring legal action over the wrongdoing. If the claim is not filed within that specified statute of limitations, normally the claim is forever barred and cannot be raised thereafter.
In the field of employment law, some of these time periods are very short. In particular, the most important federal laws that prohibit employment discrimination and harassment – Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA), the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) – require fast action by the employee to preserve his or her rights. An employee who believes he or she has one of these federal claims must file a Charge of Discrimination with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) within just 300 days of the date on which the discriminatory action occurred. If the employee does not file within this fairly short time frame, then his or her federal claim is extinguished.
For instance, if an employee is fired from a job, and believes that his or her discharge was the result of race, age, or sex discrimination, he or she must file a charge with the EEOC no later than 300 days after the date on which notice of the discharge was received.
Sometimes it can be unclear, however, as to exactly when a discriminatory act “occurred,” and thus when the 300 day period begins to run. And in some cases – like sexual harassment – the discriminatory action or conduct is ongoing, and it doesn’t necessarily occur at a single time and place. These cases can require close examination and detailed analysis to determine whether or not they are time-barred.
Furthermore, many states – like Ohio – have their own laws against employment discrimination and harassment, and these laws carry their own statutes of limitation that can be longer (or shorter) than the 300 day period governing many Federal claims. Thus, in some circumstances, even if a person’s federal claim is time-barred they may still be able to pursue a claim under state law.
Needless to say, the issue of timeliness is critically important in the field of employment law, and it can be a dangerous minefield for the unwary. Both employers and employees should always promptly consult with a qualified employment attorney as soon as they have notice of a potential claim.
Attorneys for Cincinnati’s Gang of Five informed us today that Wendell Young and Tamaya Dennard have destroyed text messages responsive to our public records and discovery requests. Dennard claims to have accidentally dropped her phone in a swimming pool and Young simply and intentionally deleted his text messages.
It is our understanding that the messages were destroyed after we filed suit and submitted discovery requests seeking the text messages. City attorneys were informed over a week ago about this issue, but chose to remain silent until today.
Within the context of Ohio’s Public Records law, destruction of public records is punished by a forfeiture of $1,000 per record. Within the discovery context, sanctions include a finding of contempt of court, fines, and in extreme instances, jail time.
City lawyers claim that they are working to recover the messages if possible, but that leaves questions as to why they represented to the Court of Appeals just yesterday that they had turned over all of the text messages.
Finney Law Firm will also explore removal from office as a potential sanction for Young and Dennard.
Attorneys for the City of Cincinnati today gave the Court of Appeals copies of the text messages responsive to our April 9, 2018 public records request.
Our request seeks communications between members of the self-proclaimed “Gang of Five” (Councilmembers Landsman, Sittenfeld, Dennard, Seelbach, and Young) and any other council member related to the official business of the City of Cincinnati between March 16 and March 18, 2018 (the days the two Gang of Five press releases were put out); and their communications with any other councilmember from March 1 to March 19, 2018 relating to or regarding Harry Black or John Cranley.
The production to the Court will remain under seal until the Court determines which, if any, of the text messages are public records pursuant to Ohio’s Public Records Act, R.C. 149.43.
The Gang of Five argues that because the messages were sent and received using their personal phones, they cannot be considered public records, no matter their content.
In addition to the in camera production, the parties submitted joint stipulations of fact and law to aid the Court’s review. Read the stipulations below or on scribd here.
Notably, the Gang of Five admits to texting other councilmembers about John Cranley and Harry Black during City Council meetings; and that some of these text messages have not been produced in response to our public records request.
We will file a motion for summary judgment by next Monday, the Gang of Five will have one week to oppose our motion, and we will file our reply memo a week after that. Once fully briefed, the case will be set for decision by a three judge panel. We are hopeful that the case will be decided by early January.
Read the Complaint here.
[scribd id=393632777 key=key-L6J2EJpwn01xoHYGWoqM mode=scroll]
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.