Page 1 of 1 [ 14 posts ] 
Author
Message
Post subject: Lawsuits Filed Against Columbus & Cincinnati Over Bump Stock
Post Posted: Fri Jun 22, 2018 8:18 am
COLUMBUS, OH - Simultaneous lawsuits were filed on Thursday, June 21, 2018, against the cities of Columbus and Cincinnati over recently introduced ordinances banning the possession, use, or acquisition of so-called "rate-of-fire firearms enhancers," commonly referred to as bump stocks or trigger cranks.

Buckeye Firearms Foundation and Ohioans for Concealed Carry are named as plaintiffs in the cases, citing that these unconstitutional ordinances clearly violate Ohio law.

"Ohio Revised Code 9.68 preempts the home rule powers of municipalities to regulate firearms, their components, and ammo," said Dean Rieck, Executive Director of Buckeye Firearms Association.

"This is important because Ohio used to have a confusing patchwork of gun laws. Merely crossing a city border could turn an otherwise law-abiding citizen into a criminal. More than a decade ago, legislators wisely decided to correct this problem by creating a uniform system of state law and forbidding cities from passing any laws which conflict with those laws."

Leaders with Ohioans for Concealed Carry (OFCC) agree and point out that there is a bigger issue at stake than "bump stocks."

"This isn't just about bump stock devices," said Doug Deeken, a Director with OFCC, "This is about rule of law in Ohio.

"For more than a decade, Ohio cities have been prohibited from any attempt to pass conflicting gun laws. There have been previous lawsuits going all the way up to the Ohio Supreme Court to establish this fact. It's settled law."

Both Ohioans for Concealed Carry and Buckeye Firearms Foundation have won lawsuits against cities who have attempted to regulate firearms.

In 2010, the Ohio Supreme Court ruled in a 5-2 opinion that Ohio's "preemption" law is valid. In a case brought by the City of Cleveland against the State of Ohio, the court held that R.C. 9.68 is valid in all respects, including, but not limited to, the mandatory attorney fee provision against any city that attempts to violate a citizen's right to self-defense.

Attorneys for Columbus and Cincinnati rejected demand letters to file for an injunction to prevent the cities from enforcing the ordinances.

"It's unfortunate that we must sue cities to force them to obey state law," said Rieck. "But we simply cannot stand by and allow activist city councils to break the law and violate the rights of Ohio's 4 million gun owners."

Buckeye Firearms Association is a grassroots organization dedicated to defending and advancing the right of citizens to own and use firearms for all legal activities, including self-defense, hunting, competition, and recreation. Its Foundation is a 501(c)(3) charitable organization that, in addition to funding legal defense and litigation, supports a wide variety of youth and educational programs, including FASTER Saves Lives to make Ohio schools safer.

Ohioans for Concealed Carry is a grassroots political activist organization. When founded, the primary goal of OFCC was getting concealed carry passed into law in Ohio. With that accomplished, the mission became to refine the concealed carry law and to expand and preserve the rights of all gun owners in Ohio as well as those who don't own guns, but don't want to see their rights further eroded.

Hence it is, that democracies have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have, in general, been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths

James Madison,,
Federalist Paper No 10
Top
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar
Joined: Wed Feb 07, 2007 2:28 pm
Posts: 1629
Post subject: Re: Lawsuits Filed Against Columbus & Cincinnati Over Bump S
Post Posted: Fri Jun 22, 2018 10:58 am
I am happy that both organizations are working together on this.

"It is only when you do not have hope in a society that you join a suicide bomber team."
- George W. Bush
Top
Offline
User avatar
Joined: Sun Feb 27, 2011 8:26 pm
Posts: 135
Post subject: Re: Lawsuits Filed Against Columbus & Cincinnati Over Bump S
Post Posted: Fri Jun 22, 2018 5:05 pm
Me too, it's refreshing!!

Hence it is, that democracies have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have, in general, been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths

James Madison,,
Federalist Paper No 10
Top
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar
Joined: Wed Feb 07, 2007 2:28 pm
Posts: 1629
Post subject: Re: Lawsuits Filed Against Columbus & Cincinnati Over Bump S
Post Posted: Sat Jun 23, 2018 10:25 pm
So, where is a copy of the complaint for all to read??????

I have a copy of the complaint, but why hasn't OFCC or BFA posted the complaint for all to read? Is there some secrete hidden in the complaint? Or is it that OFCC and BFA thinks the rank and file are too stupid to understand it?

Enquiring minds want to know.
Top
Offline
Joined: Tue Jun 16, 2009 10:45 am
Posts: 2720
Location: Too close to Cincinnati
Post subject: Re: Lawsuits Filed Against Columbus & Cincinnati Over Bump S
Post Posted: Mon Jun 25, 2018 6:04 am
LOL

"It is only when you do not have hope in a society that you join a suicide bomber team."
- George W. Bush
Top
Offline
User avatar
Joined: Sun Feb 27, 2011 8:26 pm
Posts: 135
Post subject: Re: Lawsuits Filed Against Columbus & Cincinnati Over Bump S
Post Posted: Sat Jun 30, 2018 10:47 am
Here are the links for both county's clerk of court where the complaints were filed. They are searchable public records, and anyone can go view them. I know YOU know this color of law...not sure what the slant of your post is all about. I am just going to copy and paste the language from Cincinnati directly into another post for convenience sake.




https://courtclerk.org/records-search/

https://clerk.franklincountyohio.gov/

Hence it is, that democracies have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have, in general, been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths

James Madison,,
Federalist Paper No 10
Top
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar
Joined: Wed Feb 07, 2007 2:28 pm
Posts: 1629
Post subject: Re: Lawsuits Filed Against Columbus & Cincinnati Over Bump S
Post Posted: Sat Jun 30, 2018 12:10 pm
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS HAMILTON COUNTY, OHIO



BUCKEYE FIREARMS FOUNDATION, : CASE NO.: INC., et. al. :
: JUDGE: Plaintiffs, :
:
vs. :
: MOTION FOR TEMPORARY THE CITY OF CINCINNATI, et al. : RESTRAINING ORDER &
: PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION Defendants. : (Oral Hearing Respectfully Requested)

NOW COME Plaintiffs, pursuant to R.C. §§9.68, 733.56, 733.59 and Chapter 2727 et. seq., and Civ. R. 65, and hereby move the Court for a Temporary Restraining Order and preliminary injunction: precluding Defendant City of Cincinnati from (1) enforcing Cincinnati Municipal Code §910-24 (the “Ordinance”); (2) expending any public funds in furtherance of the Ordinance; and (3) the making of any contracts with third parties in furtherance of the Ordinance. Plaintiffs additionally move this Court for an Order that no bond, or in the alternative nominal bond, be required of Plaintiffs to secure Defendants’ non-existent damages. A Memorandum in Support and an Affidavit from Plaintiffs’ expert witness are attached hereto and incorporated herein.

Respectfully Submitted,




/s/ James P. Maloney II
James P. Sean Maloney II (0061016)
8917 Eagle Ridge Ct.
West Chester, Ohio 45069
Ph: 513.463.0073 [email protected]

MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT



I. STATEMENT OF CASE & FACTS

On May 9, 2018, City Council passed an emergency Ordinance (No. 91-2018) banning “trigger activators,” immediately enforceable within city limits (the “Ordinance”). The Ordinance, as codified in Cincinnati Municipal Code §910-24, attached hereto and incorporated herein as “Exhibit 1,” makes it unlawful to possess, use, or sell “trigger activators,” defined as “a device designed or functioning to accelerate the rate of fire of a firearm to approximate an automatic weapon, including bump stocks, trigger cranks, slide fire devices, and other similar accessories.” On May 14, 2018, and again on June 12, 2018, Plaintiffs sent the Cincinnati City Solicitor, Ms. Boggs Muething, written correspondence advising that the Ordinance was unconstitutional and a plain violation of Ohio’s firearm preemption statute, R.C. §9.68. Plaintiffs requested that the City of Cincinnati (the “City”) immediately repeal the Ordinance and further asked the City Solicitor, Paula Boggs Muething to take immediate action to enjoin enforcement or effectuation of the Ordinance. The City Solicitor has confirmed on May 21,
2018 and that she had no intention of applying for an injunction and there is no indication that the City has any intention of repealing the Ordinance. There was no response to the June 12,
2018 letter.


Plaintiffs, including Plaintiff Jordan Telting, demanded, pursuant to R.C. §733.56, that the City Attorney take action to seek an injunction against enforcement of the Ordinance because the Ordinance is an abuse of the City’s corporate powers. The City Solicitor has failed and refused to take this action pursuant to R.C. §733.59 and Plaintiff Telting has since sued the City and now seeks to enjoin the unlawful exercise of the City’s home rule powers. Plaintiffs, Ohioans for Concealed Carry, Inc. and Buckeye Firearms Foundation, Inc., join Plaintiff Telting in this request and seek injunctive relief pursuant to R.C. §§9.68, 733.56, 733.59, Chapter 2727, et. seq., and Civ. R. 65.



II. LAW & ARGUMENT

A. THIS COURT SHOULD ISSUE A TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER AND PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION BECAUSE PLAINTIFFS MEET ALL CRITERIA FOR THE ISSUANCE OF INJUNCTIVE RELIEF


This Honorable Court should grant this instant Motion because Plaintiffs have no other remedy at law and meet all criteria for the issuance of a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction. “Like a preliminary injunction, a temporary restraining order makes no final adjudication for any issue. Such orders merely prevent designated parties from exercising their claimed rights pending a determination of the merits.” Beasley v. City of E. Cleveland, 20
Ohio App.3d 370, 374, 486 N.E.2d 859, 864 (8th Dist.1984). “A temporary restraining order is meant to preserve the status quo pending resolution of the underlying matter—it is not considered a remedy.” Grogan v. T.W. Grogan Co., 143 Ohio App.3d 548, 556, 758 N.E.2d 702,
708 (8th Dist.2001), as amended nunc pro tunc (June 7, 2001). In the case at bar, Plaintiffs ask that this Court enjoin the enforcement, promulgation, or effectuation of Cincinnati Municipal Code §910-24 as a provisional measure while this action is pending.

Ohio law is clear that injunctive relief is proper where a plaintiff shows that (1) there is a substantial likelihood that the plaintiff will prevail on the merits, (2) the plaintiff will suffer irreparable injury if the injunction is not granted, (3) no third parties will be unjustifiably harmed if the injunction is granted, and (4) the public interest will be served by the injunction. Procter & Gamble Co. v. Stoneham, 140 Ohio App.3d 260, 267, 747 N.E.2d 268, 273 (1st Dist.2000), cause dismissed, 91 Ohio St.3d 1478, 744 N.E.2d 775 (2001). However, no single factor is dispositive, and “if there is a strong likelihood of success on the merits, an injunction may be granted even though there is little evidence of irreparable harm and vice versa.” AK Steel Corp. v. ArcelorMittal USA, L.L.C., 12th Dist. No. CA2015-11-190, 2016-Ohio-3285, 55 N.E.3d
1152, ¶ 10 (internal quotations omitted).


1. Plaintiffs are likely to succeed on the merits


Plaintiffs are likely to succeed on the merits of this action. The Ordinance is in clear violation of Ohio Revised Code §9.68, which restricts the home rule powers of municipalities in Ohio. R.C. 9.68 provides that:

(A) The individual right to keep and bear arms, being a fundamental individual right that predates the United States Constitution and Ohio Constitution, and being a constitutionally protected right in every part of Ohio, the general assembly finds the need to provide uniform laws throughout the state regulating the ownership, possession, purchase, other acquisition, transport, storage, carrying, sale, or other transfer of firearms, their components, and their ammunition. Except as specifically provided by the United States Constitution, Ohio Constitution, state law, or federal law, a person, without further license, permission, restriction, delay, or process, may own, possess, purchase, sell, transfer, transport, store, or keep any firearm, part of a firearm, its components, and its ammunition.

(B) In addition to any other relief provided, the court shall award costs and reasonable attorney fees to any person, group, or entity that prevails in a challenge to an ordinance, rule, or regulation as being in conflict with this section. (Emphasis added).



On its face, the Ordinance is in direct violation of Ohio law expressly made by statute. The Ordinance makes it unlawful to possess, use, or sell “trigger activators,” defined as “a device designed or functioning to accelerate the rate of fire of a firearm to approximate an automatic weapon, including bump stocks, trigger cranks, slide fire devices, and other similar accessories” Cincinnati Municipal Code § 910-24(A). The Ordinance makes that which is legal in Ohio under state and federal law, illegal, and is a prime example of a municipality’s unlawful attempt to create a patchwork of laws.

The City attempts to circumvent Ohio’s firearm preemption statute. In Mendenhall v. Akron, the Ohio Supreme Court outlined a three-part test to determine whether a municipality has exceeded its powers under the Home Rule Amendment: “[a] state statute takes precedence over a local ordinance when (1) the ordinance is in conflict with the statute, (2) the ordinance is an exercise of the police power, rather than of local self-government, and (3) the statute is a general law. Mendenhall v. Akron, 117 Ohio St.3d 33, 2008-Ohio-270, 881 N.E.2d 255, ¶ 17 (2008). Using this test, the Ohio Supreme Court has determined on multiple occasions that the Ohio General Assembly achieved its goal of preempting the field of regulation concerning the right to keep and bear arms with the passage of R.C. §9.68.

In 2008, shortly after the passage of R.C. 9.68, the Ohio Supreme Court, in Ohioans for

Concealed Carry v. Clyde, invalidated a city ordinance prohibiting the carrying of concealed

handguns in city parks. Ohioans for Concealed Carry, Inc. v. Clyde, 120 Ohio St.3d 96, 2008- Ohio-4605, 896 N.E.2d 967 (2008). The Supreme Court rejected the City of Clyde’s home rule argument, and specifically noted that the General Assembly intended to preclude local regulation or restriction on the right to keep and bear arms: “[s]imply put, the General Assembly, by enacting R.C. 9.68(A), gave persons in Ohio the right to carry a handgun unless federal or state law prohibits them from doing so. A municipal ordinance cannot infringe on that broad statutory right.” Id. at ¶ 20. The Court further held that



[a] local ordinance that is an exercise of police power must give way if it conflicts with a general law. The General Assembly reiterated the need for uniformity in R.C. 9.68(A), which represents an attempt by that body to nullify all municipal laws impeding uniform application of the state statute…The General Assembly could not have been more direct in expressing its intent for statewide comprehensive handgun possession laws.” Id. at ¶ ¶ 40, 41.



Thus, in this seminal case, the Ohio Supreme Court clearly announced the correct application of the letter of the law as well as the spirit and intent of R.C. 9.68

In 2010, two years after Clyde, the City of Cleveland directly challenged R.C. §9.68 in a declaratory judgment action in City of Cleveland v. State of Ohio. In that case, the Ohio
Supreme Court upheld R.C. 9.68 and reaffirmed Clyde, holding that


R.C. 9.68 is part of a comprehensive Statewide legislative enactment – and we hold that the Court of Appeals erred in analyzing R.C. 9.68 in a vacuum…A comprehensive enactment need not regulate every aspect of disputed conduct, nor must it regulate that conduct in a particularly invasive fashion…Moreover, statements made on the floor of the House of Representatives and the Senate [discussing R.C. 9.68] reflect the General Assembly's belief that the legislation would bring uniformity to the state, superseding the existing patchwork of local firearm ordinances, which varied from one jurisdiction to the next.” Cleveland v. State, 128 Ohio St.3d 135, 2010-Ohio-6318, 942 N.E.2d 370, ¶¶ 17, 21, 24, (2010).




In 2015, the City of Cleveland again attempted to legislate on matters preempted by state law, and again, the City’s efforts were invalidated by the courts:

[b]oth the Cleveland ordinances and state law regulate the same subject matter— the ownership and possession of firearms in Ohio. R.C. 9.68 expresses the General Assembly's intent to provide uniform laws throughout the state regulating “the ownership, possession, purchase, other acquisition, transport, storage, carrying, sale, or other transfer of firearms, their components, and their ammunition” and specifically provides that “a person, without further license, permission, [or] restriction * * * may own, possess, purchase, sell, transfer, transport, store or keep any firearm, part of a firearm, its components, and its ammunition.” (Emphasis added.) Municipalities may not impose regulations that are in conflict with general laws of the state. Ohioans for Concealed Carry, Inc. v. City of Cleveland, 8th Dist. No. 104970, 2017-Ohio-1560, 90 N.E.3d 80, ¶ 22, appeal not allowed sub nom. Ohioans for Concealed Carry, Inc. v. Cleveland, 151
Ohio St.3d 1504, 2018-Ohio-365, 90 N.E.3d 947, ¶ 22 (2018).



Drawing upon precedent, the Eight District Court of Appeals held that a multitude of ordinances enacted by Cleveland were unconstitutional and in conflict with state law including ordinances that: 1) used an overbroad definition for the term “automatic firearm,” 2) set forth the offense of “Improperly Providing Access to Firearms to a Minor;” 3) prohibited weapons on school property and created a duty to notify police if weapons are discovered; 4) required the reporting of transfers of firearms with certain exceptions; 5) set forth a prohibition against transferring firearms or dangerous ordnance to a felon or intoxicated person; 6) required the reporting of lost
or stolen firearms within 48 hours; and 7) created a gun offender registry. Id. at Holding.


Despite this clearly developed case law and explicit statutory language, the City of Cincinnati, has outlawed parts or components of firearms in violation of R.C. §9.68. With respect to the language of the Ordinance itself, bump stocks, trigger cranks, slide fire, are a “component” or “part” of a firearm. Said products are made to be fixed to their respective firearm as an integral component thereof. Plaintiffs submit an affidavit from Rick Vasquez, attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference as “Exhibit 2,” to establish the required showing for injunctive relief. Rick Vasquez is an expert in the firearms industry and submits his written testimony in support of this motion.

Plaintiffs have made the necessary showing for injunctive relief in this matter. “To prevail on a request for a preliminary injunction, the standard of proof is lower than for a permanent injunction. In the former proceeding, the movant must demonstrate only a likelihood of success on the merits rather than actual success on the merits.” State ex rel. Nasal v. BJS No.


dismissed, 91 Ohio St.3d 1478, 744 N.E.2d 775 (2001)). In consideration of the foregoing, Plaintiffs request that this Honorable Court issue a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction.

2. Granting the injunctive relief will prevent irreparable harm


In this case, the City has made criminals of every person in Cincinnati who lawfully purchased any of the otherwise lawful components or parts listed in the Ordinance. “An irreparable injury is one for the redress of which, after its occurrence, there could be no plain, adequate and complete remedy at law, and for which restitution in specie (money) would be impossible, difficult or incomplete.” Cleveland v. Cleveland Elec. Illum. Co., 115 Ohio App.3d
1, 12, 684 N.E.2d 343, 350 (8th Dist.1996) (internal quotations omitted). It is not right or proper to subject otherwise law abiding citizens to criminal liability and force them to take their chances in the criminal justice system, with its attendant uncertainty, embarrassment, harm to personal and business relationships, and depravation of liberty. Should the Ordinance be allowed to remain in effect while this matter is pending, individuals traveling through the City would be subject to a different set of firearms laws throughout the remainder of Ohio. The Ordinance represents exactly the type of confusion, harm, and patchwork of laws the General Assembly sought to avoid when it enacted R.C. §9.68.

Because the Ordinance is unconstitutional and in violation state law, this is an instance where injunction relief is absolutely appropriate. Moreover, there is no other adequate remedy, and a temporary restraining order will prevent irreparable harm to Plaintiffs and those similarly situated to Plaintiffs.

3. No third parties will be unjustifiably harmed if the injunction is granted


There are no third parties that will be unjustifiably harmed if the injunction is granted. The recitals of the Ordinance cite the Las Vegas shooting, on October 1, 2017, as the main catalyst for this emergency enactment. Despite the fact eight months have elapsed since the Las Vegas shooting, Cincinnati City Council passed the Ordinance without prior and effective public notice or any opportunity for actual public hearings on the matter. Plaintiffs are confident that


prevented within city limits had this Ordinance been in effect at any time in the past. The Ordinance is a public relations stunt in a desperate attempt for certain City legislators to garner support from those who do not understand the mechanics or interplay of firearms and public safety. This Ordinance is not narrowly tailored to achieve an important government interest that would justify this emergency enactment.




4. The public interest will be served by the injunction


The public has an interest in the uniformity of firearms laws across the State of Ohio, as evidence by the very existence of R.C. §9.68, which states, in relevant part:

The individual right to keep and bear arms, being a fundamental individual right that predates the United States Constitution and Ohio Constitution, and being a constitutionally protected right in every part of Ohio, the general assembly finds the need to provide uniform laws throughout the state regulating the ownership, possession, purchase, other acquisition, transport, storage, carrying, sale, or other transfer of firearms, their components, and their ammunition.




The Ordinance outlaws certain firearms that may be used for self-defense depending on the components or parts integral to said firearms. The U.S. Supreme Court, in District of Columbia v. Heller, held that “the Second Amendment conferred an individual right to keep and bear arms.” D.C. v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570, 128 S.Ct. 2783, 171 L.Ed.2d 637 (2008). The Court went on to discuss the preeminence of the individual right to self-defense, explaining that self-defense “was the central component of the [Second Amendment] right itself.” In McDonald v. City of Chicago, the U.S. Supreme Court held that the Fourteenth Amendment Due Process clause incorporates the Second Amendment and is mandated upon the states. McDonald v. City of Chicago, Ill., 561 U.S. 742, 744 130 S.Ct. 3020, 3023 177 L.Ed.2d 894 (2010). McDonald further noted that “[s]elf-defense is a basic right, recognized by many legal systems from ancient times to the present.” Id. In certain instances, the Ordinance eliminates or creates a chilling effect on a fundamental right guaranteed under our state and federal constitutions and laws. The City ignores our U.S. and State Constitutions and state law as codified in R.C. 9.68.


instance would maintain the status quo and preserve Plaintiffs’ rights. Furthermore, injunctive relief would prevent the City’s misuse and waste of tax payer money or other funds spent enforcing the Ordinance to the ultimate detriment of the residents of the City.

B. THIS COURT SHOULD ORDER THAT NO BOND BE REQUIRED OF PLAINTIFFS BECAUSE DEFENDANTS HAVE NO POTENTIAL DAMAGES


Defendants have no damages that would require a posting of bond in this matter. The bond requirements of Civ. R. 65 are designed to secure the enjoined party from economic damages they might suffer should the Court ultimately find that the temporary restraining order or preliminary injunction should not have been granted. This is the only purpose of a bond under said section. Given that Defendants are not in position where they will suffer any economic damages from the issuance of injunctive relief, this Court should find that bond is unnecessary to the issuance of the requested orders, or, in the alternative, find that a nominal bond is sufficient to secure Defendant from their damages.

III. CONCLUSION

In conclusion, Plaintiffs meet all required criteria for the issuance of a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction. The four factors “. . . do not establish a rigid and comprehensive test for determining the appropriateness of preliminary injunctive relief;” rather, they are “. . . factors to be balanced, not prerequisites that must be met.” Frisch’s R estau rant v. Shoneys, Inc. (6th Cir. 1985), 759 F.2d 1261, 1263. Plaintiffs are likely to succeed on the merits as shown above and in the attached Exhibit 2. Granting injunctive relief will prevent irreparable harm to Plaintiffs, and those similarly situated to Plaintiffs, and will not undeservedly harm any third parties. Lastly, there is a public interest that will be served by granting said relief which will preserve the status quo pending adjudication on the merits.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs ask this Court to issue a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction restraining Defendants from enforcing, expending any public funds, making of any contracts in furtherance, or otherwise effectuating Cincinnati Municipal Code
§910-24. Plaintiffs also ask that no bond, or nominal bond, be required for injunctive relief.




Respectfully Submitted,




James P. Sean Maloney II
James P. Sean Maloney II (0061016)
8917 Eagle Ridge Ct.
West Chester, Ohio 45069
Ph: 513.463.0073 [email protected]

/s/ Ronald Lemieux
Ronald Lemieux (0093536)
The Law Office of Ronald Lemieux
P.O. Box 19183. Cleveland, Ohio 44119
Ph: 216.339.3284; Fax: 216.208.8985
E: [email protected]

/s/ David S. Kessler
David S. Kessler (0041982) Stephen P. Postalakis (0063240)
Haynes Kessler Myers & Postalakis Incorporated
300 West Wilson Bridge Road, Suite 100
Worthington, Ohio 43085
Ph: 614.764.0681; Fax: 614.764.0774
E: [email protected]
E: [email protected]

/s/ Derek A. DeBrosse _
Derek A. DeBrosse (0084183)
Barney DeBrosse, LLC
503 South Front Street, Suite 240B Columbus, Ohio 43215
Ph: 614.326.1919; Fax: 614.326.3232
E: [email protected]

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing was sent by regular U.S. mail this 21st day of

June, 2018, to:


Paula Boggs Muething, Esq.
City Solicitor, City of Cincinnati /s/ James P. Sean Maloney II, Esq.
801 Plum Street, Rm. 214 JAMES P. SEAN MALONEY II, ESQ. Cincinnati, Ohio 45202 Counsel for plaintiffs

Hence it is, that democracies have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have, in general, been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths

James Madison,,
Federalist Paper No 10
Top
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar
Joined: Wed Feb 07, 2007 2:28 pm
Posts: 1629
Post subject: Re: Lawsuits Filed Against Columbus & Cincinnati Over Bump S
Post Posted: Sat Jun 30, 2018 12:11 pm
Aaron wrote:
Here are the links for both county's clerk of court where the complaints were filed. They are searchable public records, and anyone can go view them. I know YOU know this color of law...not sure what the slant of your post is all about. I am just going to copy and paste the language from Cincinnati directly into another post for convenience sake.




https://courtclerk.org/records-search/

https://clerk.franklincountyohio.gov/

Excuse me? I asked "why hasn't OFCC or BFA posted the complaint for all to read?"

Hamilton County does not give access to the documents on the internet. They are only accessible to registered attorneys. You can personally visit the courthouse and get a copy for a price.
Franklin county does make them available on the internet.

So, you attempted to berate me and not answer my question. Typical of leadership.

OFCC did make the Attorney General's MOTION OF STATE OF OHIO FOR LEAVE TO FILE AMICUS CURIAE BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION on their facebook posting, but neither BFA nor OFCC post the actual complaint.

Conclusion, we (BFA and OFCC) are blowing our horns that we sued Columbus and Cincinnati, but if you want to read any of the filings you are on your own bucko.
Top
Offline
Joined: Tue Jun 16, 2009 10:45 am
Posts: 2720
Location: Too close to Cincinnati
Post subject: Re: Lawsuits Filed Against Columbus & Cincinnati Over Bump S
Post Posted: Sat Jun 30, 2018 6:59 pm
I was able to find it on the Franklin County site.
This is the complaint itself:

https://fcdcfcjs.co.franklin.oh.us/Case ... zQfcFn4%3D

The case number is 18 CV 005216. Plug those numbers in their search engine and you can find all the documents in the case.

Did you see? The Columbus Dispatch reported Friday that Every Town for Gun Safety is funding Columbus's defense.

"It is only when you do not have hope in a society that you join a suicide bomber team."
- George W. Bush
Top
Offline
User avatar
Joined: Sun Feb 27, 2011 8:26 pm
Posts: 135
Post subject: Re: Lawsuits Filed Against Columbus & Cincinnati Over Bump S
Post Posted: Sat Jun 30, 2018 10:10 pm
Chuck wrote:
I was able to find it on the Franklin County site.
This is the complaint itself:

https://fcdcfcjs.co.franklin.oh.us/Case ... zQfcFn4%3D

The case number is 18 CV 005216. Plug those numbers in their search engine and you can find all the documents in the case.

Did you see? The Columbus Dispatch reported Friday that Every Town for Gun Safety is funding Columbus's defense.

Thanks Chuck, but you can't get the complaint filed in Cincinnati from the Hamilton county clerk of courts website.

Again, why can't BFA and/or OFCC just post the complaints on their website or better yet their infamous Facebook page?
Top
Offline
Joined: Tue Jun 16, 2009 10:45 am
Posts: 2720
Location: Too close to Cincinnati
Post subject: Re: Lawsuits Filed Against Columbus & Cincinnati Over Bump S
Post Posted: Sun Jul 01, 2018 4:07 am
I suppose I can. My biggest problem is they file a LOT of paperwork and Im not sure what needs to be posted and what doesn't.

Why do you seem to be against everything we do?
Your attitude makes it difficult follow your suggestions

Anyway, I'll put them up there now

"It is only when you do not have hope in a society that you join a suicide bomber team."
- George W. Bush
Top
Offline
User avatar
Joined: Sun Feb 27, 2011 8:26 pm
Posts: 135
Post subject: Re: Lawsuits Filed Against Columbus & Cincinnati Over Bump S
Post Posted: Sun Jul 01, 2018 1:31 pm
Chuck wrote:
I suppose I can. My biggest problem is they file a LOT of paperwork and Im not sure what needs to be posted and what doesn't.

Why do you seem to be against everything we do?
Your attitude makes it difficult follow your suggestions

Anyway, I'll put them up there now

As to your first part of your statement, all I asked for was the posting of the complaint, nothing else. You being in leadership I would think you could converse with a number of OFCC members (some are attorneys) that could easily point out what would be an important posting.

As to your second question. I'm not against everything OFCC does. I'm against some who can't accept being challenged. Especially when their statements are contrary to the facts or law. But, then the challenger is chastised and even banned for the challenge. Unfortunately OFCC has a bad habit of placing SOME benighted thin skinned persons as moderators. OFCC has run off many contributors because of some moderators actions.

We have been over this a number of times to no avail.
You say my "attitude makes it difficult follow your suggestions." And, therein lies the problem. What attitude? All I asked is why couldn't the complaint be posted for all to see. Is that so hard to understand?

OFCC and BFA both operate just like Newspapers reporters of columnists. Telling you what laws say or what court decisions say without ever giving a link to the law or court case they are referring to. What did Reagan say? Trust, but verify.

By the way, has there been any postings by OFCC about the Cincinnati temporary restraining order hearing taking place July 16 at 2:15 PM?
Top
Offline
Joined: Tue Jun 16, 2009 10:45 am
Posts: 2720
Location: Too close to Cincinnati
Post subject: Re: Lawsuits Filed Against Columbus & Cincinnati Over Bump S
Post Posted: Sun Jul 01, 2018 8:22 pm
I've tried to be nice to you.
You make it too difficult

"It is only when you do not have hope in a society that you join a suicide bomber team."
- George W. Bush
Top
Offline
User avatar
Joined: Sun Feb 27, 2011 8:26 pm
Posts: 135
Post subject: Re: Lawsuits Filed Against Columbus & Cincinnati Over Bump S
Post Posted: Mon Jul 02, 2018 8:55 am
Chuck wrote:
I've tried to be nice to you.
You make it too difficult

I have high standards, you are going to have to just try harder.
I suggest you take a multivitamin; it could help.
Top
Offline
Joined: Tue Jun 16, 2009 10:45 am
Posts: 2720
Location: Too close to Cincinnati
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
 Page 1 of 1 [ 14 posts ] 

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests

 
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum
Search for:
Jump to: