Hi, How Can We Help You?

Category Archives: Public Interest Law

Finney Law Firm sues Ohio Department of Education over simply bizarre speech restrictions regarding Critical Race Theory

Author By Christopher P. FinneyPosted on

Whether one agrees or disagrees with the Ohio Department of Education’s adoption of Critical Race Theory and the 1619 Project’s for implementation throughout Ohio’s school systems, we should all agree that an open and robust debate about that policy before public bodies is appropriate and required under the U.S. Constitution. But that’s not how the Ohio Board of Education sees things.

Once they hastily adopted the new policies, they then formally forbade speakers before them from criticizing their decision. The ODE allows public comment on all other topics, but specifically not these two.

So, last week, the Finney Law Firm filed suit against ODE challenging these restrictions on speech during the public comment section of Board meetings. Read that suit here.

The Board did not just quietly and unconstitutionally squelch in a public forum,  but they explained why they were privileged — indeed compelled — to trample on the Constitution in this instance:

  • “[O]ur board president has instituted a policy that prevents people from speaking to our group in reference to any of these issues about critical race theory, etc.…  I’m not sure why we have a filter on what we’re allowed to hear here, but we do.”
  • “I was really glad when [LAURA KOHLER] said we weren’t going to have those speeches anymore”
  • “I would just prefer that we not have a conversation about critical race theory, or 1619….”
  • “I don’t want to sit here again and listen to two months of people – they have their opinions….  This is not what I’m here for”
  • “I’m using race and I don’t feel ashamed about that”
  • That if such public comments or testimony were allowed then the meeting of the OHIO STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION “would not longer be a safe space for me”

I suppose if you are that delicate and thin-skinned, perhaps you should not sign up for the rough and tumble of public office. Just a thought.

Media coverage of this is below:

For inquiries on this story, contact Curt Hartman (513.379.2923) or Chris Finney (513.943.6655).

Breaking: Immediate and significant changes to PPP program signed by President Biden

Author By Christopher P. FinneyPosted on

Today, President Joseph Biden announced immediate and significant changes to the Paycheck Protection program, as follows:

  1. Priority period for businesses with fewer than 20 employees for two weeks starting this Wednesday, February 24th.
  2. Different loan (grant) calculation for sole proprietors and a set-aside of $1 billion for businesses in low- and moderate income areas.
  3. Made eligible those with non-fraud felony convictions.
  4. Made eligible business owners with student loan defaults.
  5. Made eligible all lawful U.S. residents with visas or Green Cards.

Forbes magazine has more details on these breaking developments here.

Eviction moratorium: Now. Rental assistance? Later.

Author By Christopher P. FinneyPosted on

The second round of stimulus signed by then-President Trump in December extended the Centers for Disease Control limited federal eviction moratorium (started in October) through January 31, and then immediately upon taking office, President Biden extended the stay on evictions through March 31. So, landlords of qualifying non-paying tenants continue to be legally prohibited from recovering possession of their properties.

And a related component of the second stimulus bill was a rental assistance program that allowed tenants — with federal subsidy — to continue to pay their rent, and even recoup back rental accrued, so landlords could be made whole despite the eviction prohibition.

Today’s New York Times writes on the toll the pandemic is taking on the housing industry, including landlords and tenants, which led us to update on “what is the status of the rental assistance component of the stimulus bill?”

What do we know:

  • The rental assistnce is being given from the federal government to the states, who will then each establish their criteria, and application and distribution programs. Some states will be distributing the money to counties and cities for further distribution. What this will mean is a patchwork of criteria for qualification, multiple software portals, and delays in implementation.
  • We have inquired to to roll-out dates and assistance criteria and, at least as to Ohio and Kentucky, not only are none of the application and distribution procedures known, there does not even appear to be discussions with stakeholders taking place as to how best to get the assistance to those in need.
  • Thus, we had hoped that tenants and landlords could get relief by some time in March, but that does not appear feasible. Our best bet right now is April/May, but that is just speculation.

The fact that Ohio paid out $330 million in fraudulent unemployment claims in 2020 will likely slow the process to assure that bogus rental assistance claims do not slide through.

We will attempt to keep our readers informed of developments on the moratorium and rental assistance programs as they emerge.

CDC Eviction Moratorium extended (again) until March 31, 2021

Author By Christopher P. FinneyPosted on

One of Joe Biden’s first acts as President yesterday was extending the residential eviction moratorium until March 31, 2021. Read the CDC statement on that here.

We are hearing there will be extensive changes to the moratorium processes and procedures that will tilt the scales decidedly in favor of non-paying tenants. We will keep our blog readers updated on those changes as they occur.

The CDC in its release attributes the moratorium to “a housing affordability crisis” that they now place even more so on the books and backs of landlords to resolve.

Cincinnati Enquirer covers our most recent certiorari petition to the United States Supreme Court

Author By Christopher P. FinneyPosted on

The Cincinnati Enquirer covers our firm’s latest petition to the United States Supreme Court for certiorari — discretionary review of a lower Court decision. Read about that here.

Ohio Supreme Court upholds Governor’s last-minute cancellation of election

When the Ohio Supreme Court upheld Governor Mike DeWine’s last-minute cancelation of the Presidential Primary election in May, they did so in a simple one-line decision favoring the Governor’s Order. But the Ohio Constitution clearly says that the State’s highest Court must explain the reasoning behind each and every one of its decisions. State Representative Tom Brinkman reasoned that the Court could not well explain the novel decision to allow a Governor to cancel a duly-called and scheduled election at the last minute, and wanted to see their reasoning in black and white.

But what is the remedy?

Brinkman, represented by Chris Finney of Finney Law Firm and its “Of Counsel” attorney Curt Hartman, sued the Justices of the Ohio Supreme Court to force them to explain their decision — and the suit was filed at the Ohio Supreme Court. Brinkman fully expected that the Court would follow its long-established procedures to have the very Justices that had been sued as defendants in the case to recuse from the case and have others appointed from the Ohio judiciary to sit by designation on the decision.

Justices decide to be the Judge — of themselves

But much to Brinkman’s surprise and that of his attorneys, the five Justices who were defendants in the case, filed a brief in their own defense before themselves and then ruled on their own case. As you might imagine, they ruled in favor of themselves, seeing the wisdom of the brief they themselves filed and dismissed Brinkman’s Complaint. Ohioans got no explanation of the decision to cancel the election.

Is that due process?

Does that represent due process guaranteed by the US Constitution?

That is the question presented in the petition for writ of certiorari at the United States Supreme Court by the Finney Law Firm last week. Less than 1% of all cases presented to the US Supreme Court for review are granted oral argument, so Brinkman’s claim at this juncture is unquestionably an uphill battle, but Brinkman argues that it is fundamentally wrong — and unconstitutional — to allow any judges to sit in judgment of cases in which they themselves have been sued.

Can we do it yet again?

Three times previously, Finney Law Firm has achieved review of lower court decisions at the United States Supreme Court, and once accepted we won 100% of those cases 9-0.  Read about those against-all-odds wins here.

We will keep you advised if the Finney Law Firm again can thread the needle in SCOTUS practice.

Let us make an appellate difference for you

Let our team “Make a Difference” for you with our sophisticated appellate practice. Contact Chris Finney (513.943-6655) or Brad Gibson (513.943.6661) to speak with our experienced appellate litigators.

Entrepreneur.Com has excellent detail on second round of PPP in COVID stimulus bill

Author By Christopher P. FinneyPosted on

We have been looking for details of the calculations of and eligibility for the second round of PPP in the most recent COVID stimulus bill. We found this excellent in article in Entrepreneur.Com here.

Some details from the article follow (note, since the PPP “loans” are forgivable, the word “loan” essentially means “grant” for most eligible businesses):

Qualifications:

  • A loss of revenue of 25% or greater, for any one quarter — comparing 2019 to 2020. If your firm had swings in revenue or had a pronounced one-quarter loss due to COVID or other causes, you may be eligible even if your annual revenue did not dip by 25%.
  • 300 employees or fewer.
  • Must have already used or plan to use their original PPP funding.

Loan terms:

  • Maximum loan limit of $2 million.
  • Loans of 2.5 months of payroll, which is the same as the original PPP. We are checking the legislation to see if the loan amount will change based upon increased payrolls from the original calculation (for example, if additional employees were added).
  • Restaurants food businesses (we are checking on the meaning of that term) qualify for 3.5 months of payroll as their loan amount.
  • Qualifying expenses are expanded from payroll and rent or mortgage payments in the original PPP to now include operating expenses, workplace protection costs to protect employees from COVID-19 and covered property damage.
  • Loan proceeds are not taxable and loan expenses are deductible (this is true for the new program and the original PPP payments).
  • Loans less than $150,000 have significantly simplified loan forgiveness (a one-page form).

For additional details on second round PPP loans, contact attorney Rebecca L. Simpson (513.797.2856) of Finney Law Firm.

Ohio Real Estate Law: Update on RICO and Civil Conspiracy litigation against Build Realty, Inc. First Title Agency, Inc. and other co-conspirators

Author By Christopher P. FinneyPosted on

As many in the Ohio real estate, title and finance industries are aware, this firm along with the firm of Markovits, Stock and Demarco are co-counsel to several Plaintiffs challenging a long-running real estate scam that has ensnared hundreds of victims in the greater Cincinnati marketplace.

The Complaint alleges causes of action under Civil RICO, Civil Conspiracy, Breach of Fiduciary Duty by both the various Build Realty companies, First Title and Pat Connors, Negligence against First Title and Pat Connors, Unjust Enrichment, and a declaration that the various schemes designed to avoid the statutory right of redemption and the right of a borrower to excess proceeds under a lending arrangement are illegal, and that the trusts themselves are illegal and contrary to public policy.

The defendants in the proposed Amended Complaint include:

  • Build Realty, Inc.
  • First Title Agency, Inc.
  • Edgar Construction, LLC
  • Cincy Construction, LLC
  • McGregor , First Title, LLC
  • Cowtown Holdings, LLC
  • Build SWO, LLC
  • Greenleaf Support Services, LLC
  • Gary Bailey as Trustee and individually
  • George Triantafilou, as trustee and individually
  • Robert Scott Whiteside
  • G2 Technologies, LLC
  • GT Financial, LLC
  • Five Mile Capital Partners, LLC
  • Smith Graham & Co., Investment Advisors, L.P.
  • Pat Connors

A copy of the proposed form of Amended Complaint is here and below.

It appears this case will soon be moving forward before Federal District Court Judge Cole.

We will endeavor to keep victims updated by means of this blog as developments occur.

If you have questions, it’s best to email Christopher P. Finney. You may also call him at 513-720-2996.

[scribd id=469483280 key=key-GQ52opDHU9TenIB5qdcZ mode=scroll]

Paycheck Protection Program: Your small business PPP loan may be public record

Author By Christopher P. FinneyPosted on

Last week, the Small Business Administration agreed to disclose the business names and locations, number of employees and loan amounts for all Paycheck Protection Program (“PPP”) loans in excess of $150,000. The Administration released the information this morning at 10 a.m. CT. As a result, the loan for your small business may become public as part of the disclosure.

Even though your bank may treat loan information as confidential, in this case, the disclosure of information is directly from the SBA as part of the Freedom of Information Act outlined in the PPP instructions. For more information, please refer to the U.S. Department of the Treasury website.

If you need assistance with obtaining or forgiveness of a PPP loan, please contact Rebecca L. Simpson (513.797.2856).

 

1 2 3 4 … 33