Court: Ohio Mayor and His Lawyer Must Pay Sanctions to Family They Sued to Silence

Mayor’s lawsuit “frivolously” violated local bloggers’ right to free speech

Cleveland, OH – An Ohio Court yesterday ordered Maple Heights, Ohio Mayor Jeffery Lansky and his attorney to pay $9,395 in attorney’s fees and costs to internet critics they sued to silence.

In 2014, Lansky and his attorney, Brent English, filed a lawsuit for defamation and infliction of emotional distress, demanding “an amount in excess of $25,000” from Bill and Lynde Brownlee, husband and wife, after they questioned Lansky’s job performance on their blog, Maple Heights News

The 1851 Center took up the case and the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas ruled for the family in late 2015. The court explained that “a primary purpose of the First Amendment is to encourage self-government by permitting comment and criticism of those charged with its leadership.”

Yesterday, the Court finalized the case, ordering the sanctions pursuant to two Ohio statues prohibiting “frivolous conduct” in litigation, Ohio Revised Code Section 2323.51 and Civil Rule 11.

“Those who would use the courts to silence their political opponents should take this ruling seriously,” explained Maurice Thompson, Executive Director of the 1851 Center.

“When criticizing public officials, Ohioans should not be bullied into silence for fear of an expensive lawsuit. Often, the possibility of an economic penalty such as this is the only means of persuading Ohio governments and local officials to respect constitutional rights.”

The Brownlees had written a short web article in the summer of 2014 questioning whether the Mayor had kept all of his campaign promises, and further questioning his tax and spending policies. The article strictly addressed the Mayor’s policies, and did not use insulting or harsh language. One prominent undercurrent to the case concerned whether political comments on citizen websites would be entitled to the same level of protection as mainstream news commentary.

Lansky v. Brownlee was litigated by the 1851 Center in cooperation with attorneys David Tryon and Brodie Butland of the law firm of Porter Wright in Cleveland, Ohio.

Read the Court’s Order HERE

Read the Court’s Original Order Protecting Free Speech HERE

Ohio Court: Eminent Domain for Private Pipelines Unconstitutional

Private ethane pipeline to Canada is not a “public use” or “public necessity,” as required by Ohio Constitution

Ruling will protect property rights of Ohio farmers and other rural property owners

utopiaBowling Green, OH – An Ohio court ruled late yesterday that private pipeline companies cannot use eminent domain to forcibly seize Ohioans’ private property for purely private pipeline projects.

The ruling protects the property rights of dozens of Ohioans represented by the 1851 Center for Constitutional Law and others along the pipeline route. However, given the escalation in private pipeline construction throughout Ohio and the nation, the decision is anticipated to have impact well beyond just the immediate parties or the Utopia Pipeline.

In April, Texas pipeline corporation Kinder Morgan, using an arcane Ohio statute, sued the farmers in an attempt to forcibly take their land for the benefit of its private ethane pipeline to Canada. In moving to dismiss the case, the 1851 Center argued that the Utopia Pipeline is not a “public use,” as required by the Ohio Constitution. The 1851 Center explained that the pipeline is, for the sole benefit of one private Canadian corporation, shipping ethane (a by-product of fracking) underground throughout Ohio directly to that corporation’s Canadian factory, where the ethane will be used to manufacture plastic products such as water bottles.

The 1851 Center further argued that taking Ohioans’ land was not a “public necessity,” since the pipeline’s route was not set it stone by government, giving Kinder Morgan the freedom (unlike natural gas pipelines) to build its pipeline around objecting landowners.

In a decision extolling private property rights under the Ohio Constitution, Judge Robert Pollex of the Wood County Court of Common Pleas agreed. The Court explained why such attempted land-grabs by large private corporations, particularly those that are not public utilities or otherwise directly providing services to Ohioans, cannot be sustained:

  • “The fundamental principles in the Bill of Rights in our Constitution declare the inviolability of private property, and Ohio has always considered the right of property to be a fundamental right.”
  • “‘Economic development’ alone is not sufficient to satisfy public use requirements.”
  • “In this case Kinder Morgan is taking the private property for the purpose of transporting by pipeline petroleum products for the use of one private manufacturer. The manufacturer is not even a Unites States business, but rather, a Canadian business . . . there is no anticipated circumstances that would show a benefit to the citizens of Ohio or even for that matter, the United States.”
  • “This project and appropriation is not necessary nor a public use. To the extent that the Ohio statutes authorize a common carrier of Kinder Morgan’s type, the legislation is an unconstitutional infringement upon the property rights of the Defendants.”

“The Court’s ruling is a substantial victory for private property rights across Ohio, but above all else, this outcome safeguards the dignity and respect to which every Ohioan is entitled,” explained Maurice Thompson, Executive Director of the 1851 Center.

“While we fully support the continued development of oil and gas reserves in eastern Ohio, profit margins related to private efforts should not be inflated at the expense of Ohioans’ rights. Just like churches, gas stations, supermarkets, and other important private endeavors, pipeline construction can and must move forward without using the governmental power of eminent domain to redistribute land from average Ohioans to wealthy politically-connected cronies and elites.”

The Court’s ruling draws a distinction between takings for pipelines facilitating home heating or energy independence and pipelines for purely private commercial interests. While public utilities may exercise eminent domain to provide service to Ohioans’ homes, and certain oil and gas pipelines may even possess eminent domain authority, the Utopia Pipeline remains submerged through the entire state, and provides no service to Ohioans. The ruling will not prevent governments or public utilities from acquiring land for legitimately public pipelines.

The ruling is also an important reminder that Ohioans enjoy greater property rights than those protected by the federal constitution, due to a stringent state constitution.

The 1851 Center’s position was supported by an amicus brief from the Ohio Farm Bureau, as well as the efforts of the northwest Ohio law firm of Mayle, Ray & Mayle, LLC.

Read the Court’s Order upholding property rights HERE.

Read the 1851 Center’s full Motion to Dismiss HERE.

Federal Court: State Cannot Inspect Ohio Businesses Without a Warrant

Fourth Amendment prohibits state mandate to make business records, property, and inventory available to state agents “at all times” and “upon demand”

recordsColumbus, OH – A federal court late yesterday ruled that State Agencies violate the Fourth Amendment’s protection against unreasonable searches when they, without a warrant or any evidence of wrongdoing, investigate Ohio businesses by simply demanding private business records, property, and inventory.

The ruling, made by Judge Watson of the Columbus division of the Southern District of Ohio, addressed regulations governing those purchasing gold, silver, and other precious metals under the Precious Metals Dealers Act (“PMDA”).

However, its impact is likely to far exceed just the PMDA. Many Ohio businesses, particularly those requiring government licensing, face materially identical mandates. Accordingly, the ruling paves the way for Ohio businesses, even if heavily licensed and regulated, to refuse government demands to search private records, property, and inventory, especially when such demands are made on-the-spot and without a warrant.

The 1851 Center for Constitutional Law took up the case in 2012 on behalf of Liberty Coins, a coin dealer of Delaware, Ohio, and Worthington Jewelers, a retail jeweler in Worthington, Ohio. Each balked at the prospect of, without any evidence of wrongdoing, losing their business licenses and being fined and prosecuted for refusing to turn over cell phones, laptops, paper records, and even inventory such as jewelry and rare coins simply “upon demand” of state enforcement agents.

In his 35 page decision, Judge Watson, enjoined four state requirements:

  • A statute declaring that “all books, forms, and records, and all other sources of information with regard to the business shall at all times be available for inspection.”
  • A statute demanding “free access to the books and papers and other sources of information with regard to the business.”
  • A requirement that private business records be “open to the inspection of the police upon demand.”
  • A mandate that businesses, at the end of each business day, fax descriptions of every item purchased that day to local police.

The Court explained as follows: “The Inspection Provisions give the government and law enforcement the right to inspect a licensee’s records without any opportunity for the licensee to seek neutral, precompliance review. The PMDA specifically provides that failure to comply with a search request is a crime. . . . The PMDA’s Inspection Provisions violate the Fourth Amendment’s protection against unreasonable searches and seizures.”

“Acts like this treat Ohio entrepreneurs as public utilities at best, and criminals at worst, irrespective of whether they have done harm. No entrepreneur deserves to be arrested for questioning the authority of a state agent to show up at his business unannounced, without any evidence of wrongdoing, and confiscate or filter through his papers, computers, cell phones, and even his business’s inventory.” said Maurice Thompson, Executive Director of the 1851 Center.

Thompson added “we brought this case to invalidate the constant invasions confronting not just precious metal dealers, but all of the other businesses that face similar inspection requirements. Our expectation is that this precedent will invalidate these kinds of searches in all industries. Ohio businesses are free to decline invasive and costly government searches – – they cannot lose their business licenses or be prosecuted, fined, or disciplined simply for saying ‘no’.”

The Supreme Court has continuously reaffirmed that the Fourth Amendment applies to businesses and business property just as it does to individuals and private homes.

Read the Court’s Order Granting the Motion for Summary Judgment of Liberty Coins and Worthington Jewelers HERE.

Read the Plaintiffs’ Motion for Summary Judgment HERE.

Ohio Cities’ Pre-Sale Home Inspections Unconstitutional

Legal Center moves to protect Ohioans’ property rights from unlawful searches and fees statewide

uncle-sam-point-of-saleColumbus, OH – The 1851 Center for Constitutional Law today moved in federal court to immediately enjoin Ohio cities, and the Cities of Bedford and Oakwood in particular, from enforcing “point of sale” and “presale” programs that require citizens to endure and pass arbitrary and warrantless government inspections before they can sell their homes to even the most informed and willing buyers.

Such municipal ordinances, in addition to restricting Ohioans’ property rights, subject homeowners to open-ended warrantless searches of every interior and exterior space of a home, violating the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution and Section 14, Article I of the Ohio Constitution.

The legal action against Bedford is filed on behalf of area landlord Ken Pund, who is forbidden from selling to his daughter a home that he owns and she already resides in, and John Diezic, who was prohibited from selling his Bedford home due to minor cracks in the asphalt of his driveway. In Oakwood, Plaintiff Jason Thompson was forced to pay for and undergo an inspection simply after making an alteration to the title of his property.

In each case, the City threatened to criminally prosecute and even imprison these homeowners if they sold their homes without first submitting to and passing city inspections.

Both the United States and Ohio Supreme Court have invalidated warrantless inspections of houses, absent consent or an emergency. Nevertheless, Ohio cities have vigorously sought to collect inspection fees and impose fines, and the point of sale inspection requirements are the lynchpin to this revenue stream – – homeowners, irrespective of whether they want or need the inspection, pay a $100 fee to fund the inspections, and then additional fees for “follow-up” inspections.

The lawsuit seeks to restore both Ohio homeowners’ and small business owners’ freedom from warrantless searches without probable cause. In doing so, the 1851 Center’s Complaint explains the following:

  • Government inspection of homes, even when for sale, requires a warrant, and these expansive warrantless searches, as “unreasonable searches” of “houses,” violate Ohioans’ Fourth Amendment rights.
  • The Warrant Requirement is a significant protection for property owners, because a warrant can only be issued in light of serious and credible complaints about the property.
  • Fees that are charged to fund these unconstitutional inspections are also unconstitutional; cities cannot require their payment, and must return past payments.
  • In a prior 1851 Center victory, Baker v. Portsmouth, federal courts declared warrantless inspections of rental homes unconstitutional. The Fourth Amendment’s protections should extend to inspections triggered by the marketing or sale of a home, just as they apply to inspections triggered by renting a home.

“Local government agents do not have unlimited authority to force entry into Ohioans’ homes or businesses. To the contrary ‘houses’ are one of the types of property specifically mentioned by the Fourth Amendment; and Ohioans have a moral and constitutional right to exclude others, even government agents, from their property. Entry requires either a warrant or an emergency, and neither is present with respect to these suspicionless inspections,” said Maurice Thompson, Executive Director of the 1851 Center.

Watch Director Maurice Thompson explain the challenge to point of sale requirements

Watch Director Maurice Thompson explain the challenge to point of sale requirements

“The right to own property in Ohio has little value if local governments can continuously chip away at one’s right to actually make use of that property, requiring government permission slips for basic arrangements such as the sale of one’s home to a willing buyer.”

In Bedford, the City maintains the power to block sales on account of “architectural style and detail,” “color,” and lack of “orderly appearance.” In Oakwood, the City concedes “the inspection will seldom, if ever, reveal latent defects or violations of the Property Maintenance Code which are not readily apparent. Neither should owners nor prospective owners or occupants rely entirely upon our inspection regarding the house or accessory structures or fixtures.”

Read the Property Owners’ Complaint HERE

Read the Property Owners’ Motion for Preliminary Injunction HERE

###

This lawsuit is brought in partnership with the Ohio Real Estate Investors Association (“OREIA”), the Finney Law Firm in Cincinnati, and the law firm of Berns, Ockner & Greenberger in Cleveland.

Should Public Officials Be Held Liable for Violating Ohioans’ Rights?

Court considers whether Secretary of State Jon Husted should be required to compensate Ohioans whose First Amendment rights he violated

ohio supreme court judgesCincinnati, OH – On Thursday, December 10, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals heard oral arguments on whether government officials must reimburse the victims of their unconstitutional conduct for the costs and expenses imposed by that conduct.

In late 2013, federal judge Michael Watson sided with the 1851 Center in Citizens in Charge v. Husted, determining that a “residency requirement” reenacted through Senate Bill 47 violated Ohioans’ First Amendment rights by prohibiting them from working with out-of-state petition circulators on their initiative. Thereafter, the Ohio Attorney General insisted that the Secretary of State Husted was nevertheless “immune” from damages for the harm he imposed on a conservative pension reform effort in Cincinnati.

In March, Judge Watson denied the plea for immunity, explaining that Mr. Husted may indeed be liable for the harm he inflicted because the plaintiffs’ constitutional rights were “clearly established,” and any reasonable public official would have known that the residency requirement was unconstitutional (the same requirement had been held invalid in 2008).

The Attorney General appealed, even though Mr. Husted does not deny that he violated Ohioans’ rights. Instead he claims that, as a government official, he should be absolutely immune from personal liability when enforcing statutes enacted by the legislature, irrespective of their constitutionality.

The parties filed briefs, and on December 10, the 1851 Center argued that government officers should be personally liable, rather than “immune,” when they violate Ohioans’ clear constitutional rights.

“Public officials should be held accountable for the harm they inflict when violating Ohioans’ rights, not their innocent victims,” according to Maurice Thompson, Executive Director of the 1851 Center. “If public officials from the governor down through the police know that they will be liable for enforcing an unconstitutional law, they are far more likely to take Ohioans’ constitutional rights seriously. We would like to end the ‘I don’t make the law; I just enforce it’ mentality that many public officials use to escape liability for the harm they cause.”

If the State prevails in its appeal, public officials – whether police, bureaucrats, or politicians – may well be authorized to violate Ohioans’ rights without consequence.

Capital elections law professor Mark Brown is supporting the 1851 Center’s position with an amicus brief, while Ohio State elections law professor Daniel P. Tokaji has called denial of immunity here “dead-on right,” explaining “[s]ome qualified-immunity cases are difficult. Not this one.”

 

The oral argument occurred at 9:30am on Thursday December 10. You can listen to the archived oral argument HERE

Read the 1851 Center’s Appellate Brief HERE

Read media reports on this case HERE

Ohio School District Forced to Return $5.5 Million in Illegal Taxes to Taxpayers

Indian Hill Board of Education raised taxes without a vote, refused to refund money

school bus picking up kidsCincinnati, OH – After a five-plus year legal battle concluded with an Ohio Court denying all of its objections, the Indian Hill Exempted Village School District Board of Education late yesterday finally conceded that it must return the $5.5 million that it illegally assessed taxpayers after raising taxes without a public vote in 2010.

The 1851 Center for Constitutional Law’s victory on behalf of a certified class of all school district property taxpayers comes nearly one year after the 1851 Center prevailed in striking down the tax increase before the Ohio Supreme Court. After the Court’s unanimous December 2014 decision, the school district still refused to return the funds, requiring the Center to file a class action lawsuit in January of 2015.

In affirming that Ohio taxpayers maintain a constitutional right to recover unlawfully-imposed taxes, Judge Martin of the Hamilton County Court of Common Pleas denied the Board’s Motion for Summary Judgment, rejecting the Board’s position that it was not required to return any of the funds, or that in the alternative, it was required to return $2 million at most.

Indian Hill School District property taxpayers can expect a refund check by March 1, 2016. Amounts are expected to be approximately $1,000 for the average taxpayer, and much greater for many others.

“The outcome of this case reflects the principles that property taxes cannot be increased without a vote by citizens, unlawfully-collected taxes must be returned to those taxpayers from whom they were taken, and government must pay interest to taxpayers when it has kept their funds for many years, as here,” said Maurice Thompson, Executive Director of the 1851 Center for Constitutional Law.

“These results should dissuade other school districts from attempting to unlawfully raise taxes. Nevertheless, Ohioans should have a hard look at their school board members, who, absent scrutiny, could quite literally be getting away with theft, as would have otherwise happened here.”

Due to the class-action status of the case, the Court of Common Pleas will hold several hearings over the coming months to finalize the case, including addressing the administrative complexities of issuing pro rata refunds not just to current homeowners in the district, but to those that owned homes during the period of illegal taxation.

Rather than settling the matter in January, the Board diverted nearly $200,000 from funds earmarked for the education of school district children to pay attorneys fees of $400 per hour. Unable to find Cincinnati law firms willing to defend its practices, the Board opted to hire a firm consisting of Washington D.C. lobbyists and Cleveland lawyers.

The Board and its lawyers argued that it was entitled to keep the taxpayers’ money because each and every taxpayer did not file an individual protest letter with each and every property tax payment, and further argued that perhaps it could have legally raised taxes, albeit to a lesser extent, in the absence of the unlawful tax increase that it chose.

The 1851 Center countered by explaining that state and federal Due Process Clauses have been held to require the return of unlawfully-charged taxes. The Court took little time in flatly rejecting the firm’s arguments and siding with the 1851 Center.

“Judge Martin should be commended for scrutinizing and seeing through the Board’s outlandish arguments rather than just reflexively siding with government – – the Court deserves credit for doing justice for Ohio taxpayers,” added Thompson.

Read more about the underlying Ohio Supreme Court Case HERE

Read the 1851 Center’s Class-Action Filings HERE

Federal Court: Cities’ Rental Licensing and Inspection Requirements Unconstitutional

Fourth Amendment secures property rights of landlords from unlawful searches and occupational licensing regulations in Ohio and nationwide

forrentColumbus, OH – The Southern District of Ohio today ruled that the City of Portsmouth’s occupational licensing requirements imposed upon landlords – – rental property inspections and licensing fees – – violates the Fourth Amendment to the United State Constitution.

The 1851 Center for Constitutional Law’s victory on behalf of Portsmouth rental property owners Ron Baker, Nancy Ross, Thomas Howard, and Darren Oliver means that indiscriminate and warrantless government inspections of rental properties are unconstitutional nationwide, and that unlawfully-extracted “rental inspection fees” must be returned to the rental property owners who paid them.

These property owners had long rented their property in Portsmouth without license or inspections, and their properties had never been the subject of complaint by tenants, neighbors, or others. However, the City threatened to criminally prosecute and even imprison these landlords if they continued to rent their homes without first submitting to an unconstitutional warrantless search of the entire interior and exterior of these homes.

Judge Susan Dlott, of the Western Division of the Southern District of Ohio, held as follows:

  • “[T]he Court finds that the Portsmouth [Rental Dwelling Code] violates the Fourth Amendment insofar as it authorizes warrantless administrative inspections. It is undisputed that the [Rental Dwelling Code] affords no warrant procedure or other mechanism for precompliance review . . . the owners and/or tenants of rental properties in Portsmouth are thus faced with the choice of consenting to the warrantless inspection or facing criminal charges, a result the Supreme Court has expressly disavowed under the Fourth Amendment.”
  • “The inspections are also significantly intrusive. As the Supreme Court has noted, the ‘physical entry of the home is the chief evil against which the wording of the Fourth Amendment is directed.’”
  • “The search inspection sheet details eighty items to be inspected throughout the entirety of the rental property. The Court thus concludes that the intrusion is significant.”
  • “Taking into account the above factors—the significant expectation of privacy, the substantial intrusion into the home, and the inefficacy of the warrantless inspections on the proffered special need—the Court finds the warrantless inspections are unreasonable.”
  • “Having determined that the Code is not saved by special needs or the closely regulated industry exceptions, the Court concludes that the Code’s failure to include a warrant provision violates the Fourth Amendment.”

Both the United States and Ohio Supreme Court have invalidated warrantless inspections of rental property, and repeatedly held that warrantless administrative inspections of business property are generally invalid, absent exigent circumstances.

Nevertheless, Ohio cities had vigorously sought to collect licensing fees from area landlords, and the warrantless searches served as the lynchpin to each of these goals. Ordinances such as Portsmouth’s Rental Dwelling Code established an absolute prohibition on renting out property within a community – – even though the landlord may have long done so and even though his or her property may be in pristine condition – – without a government-approved license that cannot be acquired without first paying a $100 annual fee per rental home and submitting to an open-ended warrantless search of every area of the property, inside and out.

“The Federal Court’s ruling yesterday is a victory for all property owners and tenants. Local government agents do not have unlimited authority to force entry into Ohioans’ homes or businesses. To the contrary ‘houses’ are one of the types of property specifically mentioned by the Fourth Amendment; and Ohioans have a moral and constitutional right to exclude others, even government agents, from their property. Entry requires either a warrant or an emergency, and neither is present with respect to these suspicion-less rental inspections,” said Maurice Thompson, Executive Director of the 1851 Center.

“Government inspections of one’s home frequently results in arbitrary orders to make thousands of dollars worth of untenable improvements to even the most well-maintained properties. These enactments were nothing more than a set of back-door tactics to collect revenue on the backs of Ohio property owners, while attempting to chase ‘the wrong type of owners’ out of town.”

Read the Federal Court’s Order HERE
 

October 4, 2015: Columbus Dispatch: Rental inspections ruled unconstitutional

October 2, 2015: WDTN-TV 2: Federal judge rules Ohio city’s warrantless rental property inspections are unconstitutional

October 1, 2015: Portsmouth Daily Times: The original Portsmouth licensing fee declared unconstitutional

Update: Amish Daughter Healthy Despite Health Care “Experts”

In this picture, taken September 24, 2015 at the Hershberger’s roadside stand — Sarah (2nd from right) with her father and four of her nine siblings.

Yesterday I visited the home of Andy and Anna Hershberger to deliver the good news that the Medina County Probate Court had at long last formally terminated the guardianship it had created over their now 12-year-old daughter, Sarah.

A government hospital, Akron Children’s Hospital, sought to establish the guardianship to take Sarah from her Amish parents and seven siblings to force chemotherapy on her, even though all signs indicated that the chemotherapy itself appeared to be killing her, was certain to sterilize her, and would no doubt permanently change her life for the worse, even if she were to survive it.

The parents objected, seeking to treat Sarah’s mild form of cancer with a less invasive alternative treatment that appeared to be succeeding. It was at that time – – June of 2013 – that one of the State’s doctors testified that absent “immediate chemotherapy” Sarah would certainly be dead within six months. The court found this evidence compelling.

As the Amish community was put in touch with the 1851 Center, court battles ensued. Ultimately, those battles resulted in protecting Andy and Anna Hershberger’s fundamental constitutional right to make important health care decision for their daughter.

Two years later, having never undergone chemotherapy, Sarah couldn’t be healthier. Court records disclosed at yesterday’s hearing indicated the following:

  • “[Sarah] exhibits no symptoms of lymphoma”
  • “There are no reports or indications that Sarah cannot keep up with her work or her siblings on a daily basis.”
  • “Medicine is not always right, as evidenced by Sarah’s survival in the face of ‘certainty’ she would die without treatment”
  • “There is no need for Sarah’s health to be on the Court’s radar”

This case exposed the worst of the alignment between health care “experts,” Ohio’s big hospital lobby, and faulty government legislation:

  • The statute at issue, still on the books, gives Ohio judges the freedom to overrule suitable parents when they hold a differing opinion as to the “best interests of the child.”
  • Government hospitals put forth so-called experts to testify that there is only one way to treat a particular ailment, and that “one best way” must be imposed through forced health care, even over parents’ thoughtful objections.
  • Average Ohio parents lack the resources to hire an expert doctor to rebut the so-called “expert” doctor that their government is using against them (funded by their own tax dollars).
  • So long as government locks in “the one best treatment” by forcing all to comply with that protocol, medical innovation and experimentation will suffer.

Fortunately for Sarah, the Amish community is not conventional, and refused to bow to government commands. We at the 1851 Center are proud to have played a role in defending suitable Ohio parents’ moral and constitutional right to make important health care decision for their children.

But this battle continues. Ohio suffers from a cavalcade of health care “experts”, eager to deprive of us of our autonomy in light of their “certainty” that they know what is best for us.

But as this now-closed saga has proven, these experts have no skin in the game, arrogantly pontificate without fear of consequences, and are in fact frequently wrong.

Ohioans cannot afford to trust their health or their children to government expertise. We have already been swept into a system whereby we are forced to fund much of what now passes for health care in our state and nation, whether we use it or not. But the matter of whether we must be forced to use itis another matter entirely.

The Ohio General Assembly – – members of which laud health care freedom, family values, and parental choice while campaigning for office – – cannot justify maintenance of Ohio’s wide-open and highly subjective “best interests of the child” test. This test allows county judges to overrule health care, educational, and other important decisions of suitable Ohio parents. Once overruled, children can be immediately seized from their homes.

In the wake of Sarah’s case, this concept came to be known as “medical kidnapping.”

The Hershberger’s case is a lesson for all of us: we’re not as smart as we think we are. Knowledge is decentralized, and when in doubt, those closest to the situation, families (and not government experts with special designations next to their names) must make life-altering decisions.

Further, Sarah’s good health bolsters the case against forced health care that we supposedly cannot live without (literally, in this case).

It is now time for Ohio legislators to protect Ohio families from wayward judges. This can be done by reforming Ohio’s unconstitutional “best interests of the child” test.

In the meantime, Ohioans must continue to question authority.

Maurice Thompson
Executive Director
1851 Center for Constitutional Law

Watch a 2013 video on the case from Reason.tv:

reason_amish

Our clients receive free legal representation thanks to the generosity of our donors. If you support our efforts to advance liberty and limit government, please consider making a tax-deductible donation to the 1851 Center for Constitutional Law.

Proposed Amendment Will Strengthen Ohio’s Term Limits on Legislators

termlimitColumbus, OH – Today, the 1851 Center for Constitutional Law secured the approval necessary for a coalition of good government advocates to begin the circulation of a proposed constitutional amendment that would limit state legislators to no more than eight years in each House and twelve total years at the Statehouse.

The proposal “To Strengthen Ohio Term Limits” today cleared the Ohio Ballot Board, after obtaining Attorney General certification ten days earlier. Petitions will now be circulated by a coalition of Ohioans backed by U.S. Term Limits, the organization responsible for first introducing term limits to Ohio through a 1992 constitutional amendment.

The proposed amendment will likely appear on the November 2016 ballot, so long as 304,000 valid signatures are submitted by early July of 2016.

The Amendment would provide that, in Ohio:

  • No person shall hold any combination of elected legislative offices for greater than twelve years, total.
  • No person shall hold the same elected legislative office for greater than eight years, total.
  • No person shall hold an elected legislative office if the term limits in this Amendment would forbid that person from completing the full term for that office.

The Amendment would not count years in office accrued prior to its passage.

This effort comes in response to legislators’ creation of a commission – – “The Constitutional Modernization Commission” – – to attempt to increase their own terms of office by rolling back or eliminating Ohio’s current term limits. Several legislators have indicated this to be the overwhelming purpose behind the Commission, which consists solely of legislators, former politicians, lobbyists, and political donors.

“Ohioans should be disturbed to learn that state legislators appear poised to attempt to shred the very term limits Ohioans overwhelmingly voted to place upon them,” said Maurice Thompson, Executive Director of the 1851 Center. “This Amendment will end the abusive ‘musical chairs’ practice whereby some legislators remain in power for decades, losing touch with their communities and constituents and making better connections with politically-connected interests in Columbus.”

“The longer a public official holds office, the more likely he or she is to see government as the solution to every problem, and the less likely he or she is to reform serious problems created by government. The United State Congress perfectly illustrates this.”

Members of the coalition include those responsible for passing Ohio’s original term limits on legislators in 1992, eliminating Ohio’s estate tax in 2011, and passing the Health Care Freedom Amendment in 2011.

Read the Full Text of the Amendment HERE

Read 1851 Center Op-Ed on Improving Ohio Term Limits HERE

Read further media reports on this term limits effort HERE

Legal Center to High Court: Cleveland-Area Stormwater Tax Unconstitutional

Northeast Ohio Sewer District tax on “impervious surfaces” is without legislative authorization, and is a property tax without the required voter approval

stormwaterColumbus, OH – The 1851 Center for Constitutional Law late yesterday submitted to the Ohio Supreme Court its Merit Brief asserting that the Northeast Ohio Regional Sewer District, a Cleveland-Akron area administrative agency, lacks authority to regulate property in response to rainwater, which is not sewage, and even if it has such authority, may not impose a stormwater-related tax without a vote.

The Sewer District seeks to levy a tax on “impervious surfaces” on hundreds of thousands of Northeast Ohio residential and business property owners. These surfaces include roofs, patios, driveways, and parking lots, and are taxes levied based upon the square footage of each. The District maintains that this is a means of addressing rain-related erosion, run-off, and flooding.

Although such districts’ authorities often claim that settlement agreements with the federal EPA mandate such programs, such settlements mandate no particular course of action and do not permit agencies to transgress the Ohio Constitution.

Joining the 1851 Center on the Brief is the Ohio Real Estate Investors Association. Objecting to the taxes and regulations are several Cleveland-area municipalities, as well as numerous property-owner and business organizations, including the Ohio Council of Retail Merchants, Greater Cleveland Association of Building Owners and Managers, and the Cleveland Automobile Dealers Association.

The 1851 Center’s amicus brief argues that a sewer district, as an administrative agency of defined and limited powers, has no authority to impose taxes and regulations related to rainwater falling from the sky, i.e. something other than sewage. The brief further maintains that even if the agency had power to address rainwater, it may not tax property owners because the Ohio Constitution prohibits the raising of property taxes without voter approval through a tax levy election.

The 1851 Center’s brief asserts the following:

 

  • Pursuant to the Ohio Constitution, the General Assembly can only confer administrative power on an agency, and such agencies may not make policy.

 

  • The Northeast Ohio Regional Sewer District seeks to manage stormwater – – rain, essentially. The legislature, however, fully aware that it rains and snows in Cleveland, gave the Sewer District no such authority.

 

  • The Sewer District maintains no power to levy a tax without voter approval.

 

  • Although labeled a “fee,” the stormwater fee meets the legal standards of a tax because it is levied without regard to use, on certain property owners who gain no particular benefit from paying it, to advance goals that benefit the general public.

 

“Agencies like this are entirely unaccountable to the public, and this case stands for the principles that such agencies cannot take control of every facet of our lives, down to rainwater and the size of our patios, while taxing development in a manner that punishes and discourages it, with no regard to economic factors or public approval,” said Maurice Thompson, Executive Director of the 1851 Center for Constitutional Law.

“The Sewer District’s tax on impervious surfaces, including nearly every patio, rooftop, and driveway in Northeast Ohio, bares a far closer resemblance to sewage than does rainwater, and the District must consider less invasive methods to dealing with rain, which we have managed to deal with without taxation for all of human civilization.”

Oral arguments will likely take place in the fall.

Read the Amicus Brief here.