Read the decision of Judge Dlott allowing the Tea Party case to proceed against the IRS in the Southern District of Ohio.
NorCal Tea Party Patriots v. IRS Order Granting in Part and Denying in Part Motion to Dismiss by Finney Law Firm, LLC
The Finney Law Firm has been retained by leading real estate attorneys and property owners in Hamilton County to defend our system of “Land Registration” that is being threatened by some of our elected officials. Read about that process and political battle here (in an unfortunately-slanted piece).
There are two ways in Ohio to hold title to real property — “regular” land title and the Torrens system of registered land.
Under the regular system, evidence of title is placed of record by means of recording of deeds, mortgages, easements, liens and such in the real property records. Under the Torrens land registration system, title is evidenced by the notations on a single “Registered Land Certificate.”
In Hamilton County, more than anywhere else in the State, we have registered land — and lots of it. About 20% of all parcels, about 52,000 in total, were voluntarily placed into the system by the owners bringing suit years ago to “register” their title. Thereafter, all changes to title have to be handled in a careful, methodical system that assures that claims against title and transfers of title are registered on the certificate. If someone wants to opt out of the system, there is a simple and inexpensive process that can be followed.
Until recently, the only way to de-register land en-masse and without regard to the preference of the owners of the land was to send a certified letter to each property owner, and then, following some significant legal formalities, have a vote of the County Commission to abolish the registration in that County. Recently, the Ohio legislature dispatched with the mailed notice required to property owners.
Now, under that new abbreviated system, Hamilton County Commissioners are considering a vote to abolish all registered land in the County. If two Commissioners vote to approve the change, the additional protections that the owners of 52,000 parcels of land in the County have paid for will disappear.
Our firm has been retained to (i) work to defeat such policy change, and (ii) if it is enacted, to bring suit on behalf of affected property owners to overturn such decision.
We are honored to have been selected to help “make a difference” for our clients in this important battle.
Wednesday, Finney Law Firm attorneys Curt Hartman and Christopher Finney brought a mandamus action at the Ohio Supreme Court to force disclosure of the official records of Cuyahoga County, Ohio relating to Cuyahoga County Executive Ed Fitzgerald’s use of his pass card for entering and leaving official County buildings. FitzGerald is the democrat nominee for Governor in the November election.
Both the Cleveland Plain Dealer newspaper and the Ohio Republican Party have sought the records, yet FitzGerald and his County employees have refused to release the same.
The documents are clearly public records as defined by Ohio law, and no exception in the statute to their disclosure applies. In other words, they are required by law to be produced.
Finney Law Firm has filed an original action for “mandamus,” directly with the Ohio Supreme Court. Ohio law allows the “Relator” in such action, essentially the plaintiff, to choose whether to file the action with any of a County Common Pleas Court, an Ohio Appeals Court or the Ohio Supreme Court. An action in mandamus is one to require a public official, here FitzGerald and other County employees, to perform duties they are required under the law to perform.
Read our complaint for writ of mandamus here.
Read our memorandum in support of writ of mandamus here.
Stay tuned to our blog for breaking developments in this matter.
Finney Law Firm’s public interest lawyers received plaudits from Enquirer reporter and editorialist Cindi Andrews for our work to keep government accountable.
Read her piece here.
We are pleased to announce that the Finney Law Firm has been selected as counsel in a suit against Cuyahoga County Executive Ed FitzGerald in a dispute regarding access to public records relating to Mr. FitzGerald’s work for the County.
Read the Ohio Republican Party’s Press Release here.
Finney Law Firm attorneys Curt C. Hartman and Christopher P. Finney are leading this litigation for the firm.
Politico has a brief summary of today’s Harris v. Quinn decision from the U.S. Supreme Court here. As with the Hobby Lobby decision, it is narrow and cautious. It is entirely limited to the attempt by the Illinois legislature to force home health care workers into unions, and likely does not apply directly to other fact patterns.
However, language in the opinion savaging Abood v. Detroit Board of Education, which ruled that forced unionization for public employees was constitutional in 1977, has given renewed hope to those challenging forced unionization that the Court is moving in the direction of recognizing the right not to join a union.
Here is SCOTUS Blog’s more detailed analysis of today’s Harris decision.
Our very short plain English version of the Hobby Lobby decision from the U.S. Supreme Court today is that the decision very narrowly exempts corporations whose shares are “each owned and controlled by members of a single family” from the contraceptive mandate based upon religious beliefs.
The longer Plain English version is here from the SCOTUS blog.
The podcast from Christopher Finney’s appearance today on 55 WKRC regarding Susan B. Anthony List and COAST cases against the Ohio Elections Commission is below:
http://www.bsontheissues.com/shows
Monday morning at 10 AM, we have oral argument on Motions to Dismiss filed by the IRS, Lois Lerner, Holly Paz, Douglas Schulman and the rest of the rogue’s gallery of characters in the IRS scandal in front of U.S. District Court Judge Susan Dlott on one of the several suits that have been filed against the IRS over its targeting of pro-Israel and Tea Party groups seeking tax treatment under IRC 501(c)(3) and 501(c)(4). Our case is captioned NorCal Tea Party v. IRS, was the first suit filed, and is here because the scandal initially arose from actions of Cincinnati IRS agents.
The oral argument is on the IRS position that “it can do whatever it wants” and that no actions it takes, regardless of how outrageous, how targeted and how discriminatory, are subject to a suit under statute or the Constitution. That seems pretty incredible, huh?
It does, but the IRS fears mightily the case proceeding beyond a Motion to Dismiss, because at that stage private litigants can proceed with documentary discovery and depositions, allowing the actions and motivations of the IRS to be thoroughly explored, all the way up to White House involvement.
So, a lot is at stake before Judge Dlott, starting with the oral argument at 10 AM tomorrow.
By the way, I ran across this June 13 blog entry from the “Cincinnati Tax Guy,” Steve Hamilton, that pretty accurately covers the legal issues in the “Z Street case,” which overlap the Cincinnati NorCal case pretty well.