FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
June 23, 2020

Ohio Dept. of Health has no Constitutional Authority to Overrule State Legislation Protecting Parents, Children, and Daycares

Mason, OH – The 1851 Center for Constitutional Law today filed suit on behalf of 40 daycare centers across Ohio to enjoin the Ohio Department of Health from continuing to enforce its arbitrary limits, as implemented through the Director’s May 29, 2020 Order, on the number of children daycares may supervise.

The May 29 Order severely reduces the number of children each adult staff member may supervise and the number of children who may be in the same room at any one time, even though the statutes governing daycares expressly protect their right to care for larger groups of children:

  • The Director’s Order reduces the number of pre-schoolers a staff member may care for from 14 to nine.
  • The Director’s Order reduces the number of school-aged-children a staff member may care for from 20 to nine.
  • The Director’s Order reduces the number of children who may be within the same room, regardless of the size of the space, from 40 to nine.

However, agency regulations attempting to overrule express legislation on the same subject violate Ohio’s Separation of Powers limits. And in this case the Ohio Revised Code expressly provides that no administrative regulations may conflict with the group sizes the General Assembly has protected.

“The Ohio Constitution protects Ohioans from unelected government administrators attempting to override statutes passed by elected representatives, no matter what the rationale,” explained 1851 Center Executive Director Maurice Thompson. “These regulations are particularly pernicious because they limit child care options for parents needing to return to work, dramatically raise the costs of these options, and threaten to bankrupt Ohio daycares.”

The case is pending before Judge Timothy Tepe in Warren County, Ohio.

Read the 1851 Center’s Motion for Preliminary Injunction Here.

###

The 1851 Center for Constitutional Law is a nonprofit, nonpartisan legal center dedicated to protecting the constitutional rights of Ohioans from government abuse. The 1851 Center litigates constitutional issues related to property rights, regulation, taxation, and searches and seizures.

Water slide photo.

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
June 12, 2020

Another Ohio Court Slams Forced Closures as Unconstitutional

Statute Health Department relies on is unconstitutional and it has no authority to close businesses or create its own penalties

Kalahari wins right to open immediately

Sandusky, OH – An Ohio Court of Common Pleas Wednesday enjoined the Ohio Governor and Director of the Department of Health from “imposing or enforcing penalties solely for non-compliance with the director’s order” against Ohio waterparks.

The 1851 Center for Constitutional Law’s victory against Ohio’s Governor and Health Department comes on behalf of Kalahari Resorts, who moved to enjoin the Ohio Department of Health from continuing to enforce its criminalization of even safe business operations, as implemented through the Director’s various Orders since March.

The 12 page ruling by Judge Roger Binette of the Erie County Court of Common Pleas, the most forceful repudiation of the Governor’s pandemic Orders to date, explains that private property rights are fundamental rights in Ohio, and that the Ohio Department of Health has both violated those rights and exceeded the Ohio Constitution’s Separation of Powers in shutting down and otherwise penalizing Ohio businesses:

“The statutes granting [the Health Director] the authority, power to enforce, and criminalize also violates the separation of powers that exist in our Constitutional framework to protect our citizens from the consolidation of power in one person.”

***

“Moreover, if one unelected, unaccountable to the public, official is allowed to invoke unfettered Orders, which can criminalize an otherwise non-criminal activity only for disobedience to her Orders, then the right to Due Process is extinguished. The authority to issue Orders, create strict liability crimes without legislative or Administrative oversight, and impose criminal sanctions. To restrict the fundamental right of property based on an impermissible classification of ‘identity’ rather than on ‘safety’. To violate the separation of powers by delegating policy making, rather than policy shaping, to an Administrative agency without proper oversight or reservation of authority to override Orders. All these are a concern for this Court in regards to Due Process and Equal Protection rights of the citizens being violated.”

***

“Defendants are not harmed by granting the requested injunctive relief. This is because they have been improperly granted the power to create and criminally enforce, with strict liability, laws simply by a decision of an unelected, unaccountable to the general public, administrative officer by virtue of an Order. Application of which is, can and does trample of the fundamental rights of the citizens. Further, in regards to Defendants’ concern of the ‘spreading of the virus’ by allowing Plaintiffs’ business to open prior to June 19th, this Court points to Comm. Schade’s testimony. That 15 of the 19 deaths in Erie Co. were people who would not likely go to Plaintiffs’ businesses; they were in the Ohio Veterans Home.”

***

“There appears to be no reason why Plaintiff Kalahari should remain closed at this juncture. The only reason they are is that an unelected official, with unbridled authority – that was given in offense to the separation of powers and used to infringe of Due Process and Equal Protection rights – issued the May 29th Order.”

“Our corrupt and incapable Governor can run from the Ohio Constitution, but he can no longer hide from it. With yet another judicial repudiation of his conduct, there can be no justification for continuing his unconstitutional assault on Ohioans.” explained 1851 Center Executive Director Maurice Thompson.

The Court’s Order means that Kalahari can fully re-open immediately.

In other news, the Ohio Attorney General agreed to drop all criminal charges against Vicki Brearley after the 1851 Center filed a Motion to Dismiss in that case.

Read the Court’s full Order Here.

###

The 1851 Center for Constitutional Law is a nonprofit, nonpartisan legal center dedicated to protecting the constitutional rights of Ohioans from government abuse. The 1851 Center litigates constitutional issues related to property rights, regulation, taxation, and searches and seizures.

DONATE

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
June 5, 2020

Cedar Point, Kings Island, Kalahari Sue to Open

Ohio Dept. of Health has no Constitutional Authority to Keep these Businesses Closed

Columbus, OH – The 1851 Center for Constitutional Law today filed suit to enjoin the Ohio Department of Health from continuing to enforce its criminalization of Ohio’s amusement and water parks, as implemented through the Director’s May 29, 2020 Order.

The cases are filed on behalf of Ohio’s three largest amusement and water parks: Cedar Point, Kings Island, and Kalahari Resorts.

The May 29 Order singles out amusement and water parks even as nearly all other Ohio businesses are permitted to operate. The Order provides no opening dates for these seasonal businesses that employ thousands and generate the bulk of the economic activity in their respective counties, even though these businesses are safe to operate.

The 1851 Center’s Complaints assert that the Health Director maintains no power to close otherwise lawful Ohio businesses or create her own sanctions to enforce those closures.

Further, the Order permits businesses with similar features, such as pools and large crowds, to open, while singling out amusement and water parks for disfavored treatment. Also, the Governor announced on June 4, 2020 the opening of many like-kind businesses.

“The Ohio Constitution’s protections apply to all, including those businesses that the state’s highest public officials view as non-essential.  The Governor and his Health Director must end their unnecessary and unconstitutional assault on Ohioans’ businesses and traditions,” explained 1851 Center Executive Director Maurice Thompson. “We and our clients remain committed to ensuring that these arbitrary policies never again recur.”

The cases are pending in the Erie County Courts of Common Pleas before Judge Binette, and the Warren County Court of Common Pleas, before Judge Oda.

Read the 1851 Center’s Complaints Here and Here.

The 1851 Center for Constitutional Law is a non-profit, non-partisan legal center dedicated to protecting the constitutional rights of Ohioans from government abuse. The 1851 Center litigates constitutional issues related to property rights, regulation, taxation, and search and seizures.

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
May 27, 2020

1851 Fights 90 Days in Jail for “Disobedient” Ohio Diner Owner

1851 Center Moves to Dismiss Criminal Charges in State’s First Criminal Case for Violating Pandemic Orders

Cambridge, OH – The 1851 Center for Constitutional Law today moved to dismiss the criminal charges against an Ohio restaurant owner who opened her restaurant one week early.

The motion is filed on behalf of National Road Diner owner Vicki Brearley of Cambridge, who faces 90 days in jail solely because, according to the prosecution, she “did violate an order the Director of Health issued to prevent a threat to the public caused by a pandemic” by “allowing sit down dining” on May 6, 2020.

The case is believed to be the first prosecution of an Ohio business owner for disobedience with the Orders of Health Director Amy Acton, and the first prosecution in the 134-year history of the quarantine statute.

“Ohioans should remain alert that the real-world consequence of seemingly-amicable ‘public health’ regulations is the violent caging of peaceful dissenters who have done no harm,” explained 1851 Center Executive Director Maurice Thompson. “But Ohioans ought not fear:  the Ohio Constitution prevents the State from criminalizing mere ‘disobedience with any order.’”

The 1851 Center’s motion to dismiss the charges posits as follows:

  • Only the Ohio General Assembly may criminalize conduct, and it must do so with specificity.
  • If the Ohio General Assembly has delegated to the Director of Health the unfettered power to create her own crimes, then that delegation is impermissibly vague and violates the Ohio Constitution’s separation of powers.
  • Insofar as they attempt to impose criminal penalties, the Director’s Orders are “void” because, pursuant to a prominent portion of the Ohio General Assembly’s 2015 criminal justice reforms, the Orders fail to “specify the degree of mental culpability required for commission of the offense.”

In addition, the 1851 Center emphasizes that while no Ohioan has been prosecuted for violating “any quarantine order” in the past 130 years, the only court to have addressed the issue, in the 1851 Center’s recent victory in Rock House Fitness v. Acton, determined that the Director lacked the authority to close businesses or unilaterally criminalize otherwise lawful conduct.

The Director’s April 30, 2020 “Stay Safe Ohio Order” purported to keep Ohio restaurants closed. However, that Order was lifted just several days after the May 11 charges were filed against Mrs. Brearley.

The case is pending before Judge John M. Nicholson of the Cambridge Municipal Court in Guernsey County.

Read the 1851 Center’s Motion HERE.

The 1851 Center for Constitutional Law is a non-profit, non-partisan legal center dedicated to protecting the constitutional rights of Ohioans from government abuse. The 1851 Center litigates constitutional issues related to property rights, regulation, taxation, and search and seizures.

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
May 20, 2020

Ohio Court: Forced Closure of Gyms Unconstitutional

Health Department has no authority to close all business or create its own penalties

Painesville, OH – An Ohio Court of Common Pleas Wednesday morning enjoined the Ohio Governor and Director of the Department of Health from “imposing or enforcing penalties solely for non-compliance with the director’s order” against gymnasiums, health clubs, fitness centers, gyms, and workout facilities.

The 1851 Center for Constitutional Law’s victory against Defendant Amy Acton comes on behalf of 35 independent gyms across the state, who moved to enjoin the Ohio Department of Health from continuing to enforce its criminalization of even safe gym operations, as implemented through the Director’s various Orders since March.

The ruling by Judge Eugene Lucci of the Lake County Court of Common Pleas explains that private property rights are fundamental rights in Ohio, and that the Ohio Department of Health has both violated those rights and exceeded its own authority in “criminalizing lawful businesses, and imposing strict liability for violations, including severe criminal, civil, and equitable penalties”:  “The director has no statutory authority to close all businesses, including the plaintiffs’ gyms … She has acted in an impermissibly arbitrary, unreasonable, and oppressive manner without any procedural safeguards.”

The ruling further excoriates the Department of Health’s insistence that “one unelected individual could exercise such unfettered power to force everyone to obey impermissibly vague rules without any legislative guidance.”

“Constitutions are written to prevent governments from arbitrarily interfering in citizens’ lives and businesses.  On that front, the call to action is clear:  the Governor and Health Director may no longer impose their own closures and regulations and write their own criminal penalties to enforce those regulations and closures,” explained 1851 Center Executive Director Maurice Thompson.  “We remain available to serve those who are caught in the State’s tangled web of unlawful orders.”

Read the Court’s Order HERE.

The 1851 Center for Constitutional Law is a non-profit, non-partisan legal center dedicated to protecting the constitutional rights of Ohioans from government abuse. The 1851 Center litigates constitutional issues related to property rights, regulation, taxation, and search and seizures.

Special thanks to Tim Cassell at Pinnacle Performance, who helped organize Ohio gyms to challenge government authority, even as other industries’ “leaders” wilted.

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
May 12, 2020

Ohio Gyms Sue Health Department for Right to Exist

Even in emergencies, the Ohio Constitution protects businesses from vague and discriminatory enactments.

Columbus, OH – The 1851 Center for Constitutional Law today, on behalf of 35 independent gyms across the state, moved to enjoin the Ohio Department of Health from continuing to enforce its closure of gyms and fitness centers, as implemented through the Director’s April 30, 2020 “Stay Safe Ohio Order.”

The April 30 Order opens, or provides a pathway to opening, many Ohio industries, but leaves gyms closed indefinitely without regard to whether gyms are capable of operating safely.

The 1851 Center’s Complaint asserts that the Health Director’s unfettered discretion over matters of quarantine and isolation is impermissibly vague and violate separation of powers on its face. Further, the use of those powers to criminalize gyms that could otherwise comply with each of the safety regulations articulated in the April 30, 2020 Order violates operators’ right to equal protection.

“The Ohio Constitution requires greater scrutiny of vague and discriminatory enactments that trample Ohioans’ property rights. Ohio gyms are capable of operating safely, and have the right to operate on equal terms with other Ohio businesses. Once gyms have opened, we are committed to ensuring that these arbitrary policies never recur,” explained 1851 Center Executive Director Maurice Thompson.

The case is pending before Judge Eugene Lucci in the Lake County Court of Common Pleas.

Read the 1851 Center’s Complaint HERE.

The 1851 Center for Constitutional Law is a non-profit, non-partisan legal center dedicated to protecting the constitutional rights of Ohioans from government abuse. The 1851 Center litigates constitutional issues related to property rights, regulation, taxation, and search and seizures.

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
April 16, 2020

Legal Center:  Ohio Ban on “Non-Essential Business” Unconstitutional

Without hearings where the State justifies its decisions, the ban violates Due Process

Columbus, OH – The 1851 Center for Constitutional Law today moved to enjoin the Ohio Department of Health from continuing to enforce its criminalization of “non-essential business,” as implemented through the Director’s April 2, 2020 Stay at Home Order.

The April 2 Order fails to provide owners of “non-essential businesses” any opportunity for a hearing where the State must demonstrate that such businesses are indeed “non-essential” and incapable of safe operation, even as many other businesses and operations not essential to survival have been exempted.

The legal action is brought on behalf of an otherwise-successful Columbus bridal shop and its proprietor Tanya Rutner Hartman, who, due to the Director’s ban, are forced to choose between financial ruin or prosecution.

The 1851 Center’s Complaint and Motion for Temporary Restraining Order asserts that in depriving “non-essential” Ohioans of their livelihood without the requisite opportunity for a hearing, the Director’s Order violates Ohioans’ procedural due process rights, safeguarded by the Fourteenth Amendment:

  • While the State is entitled to latitude when confronting a pandemic, that latitude does not permit trampling of basic constitutional rights, particularly when policies endure over an extended period of time without legislative action or administrative rulemaking.
  • When depriving a citizen of his or her livelihood, even temporarily, both the Constitution and binding precedent require an immediate hearing where the state is required to justify its deprivation.
  • Even in emergencies, the Due Process Clause requires immediate hearings, so that citizens are neither erroneously shut down nor erroneously punished.

“The requirement of an immediate hearing where the state must prove its case is more than a technicality:  because the state cannot justify its arbitrary closures, many Ohio businesses will be free to immediately re-open, even if simply on a limited basis,” explained 1851 Center Executive Director Maurice Thompson. “Basic rights like this are overlooked when health administrators are empowered to serve unchecked as the legislative, executive, and judicial branches of government all at once.”

Read the 1851 Center’s Complaint HERE.

The 1851 Center for Constitutional Law is a non-profit, non-partisan legal center dedicated to protecting the constitutional rights of Ohioans from government abuse. The 1851 Center litigates constitutional issues related to property rights, regulation, taxation, and search and seizures.

Ohio cities violate property rights by using zoning to prohibit more than three unrelated people from living in the same home

Bowling Green, OH – A federal court late Friday, agreeing with arguments made by the 1851 Center for Constitutional Law, held that an Ohio city’s zoning ordinance restricting homes to occupancy by no more than three unrelated adults violates the Ohio Constitution’s greater protection of private property rights.

The 1851 Center’s victory against the City of Bowling Green comes on behalf of 23 Bowling Green landlords and three student tenants threatened with eviction. The landlords own over 161 homes that until the ruling, despite having four or more bedrooms and ample parking, could not be occupied by more than three unrelated people.

“In Ohio, many zoning regulations needlessly interfere with private property rights, drive up the cost of living, fail to accomplish their proclaimed purposes, and are used as political weapons – often to benefit special interests or suppress disfavored minorities. This regulation is no different,” said 1851 Center Executive Director Maurice Thompson. “However, there is no coherent reason why four graduate students or even the  Golden Girls should be prohibited from occupying a large six-bedroom house, even as an unruly family of eight lives in a smaller home next door.”

The 13-page ruling by Judge James R. Knepp of the Northern District Ohio firmly rejects any notion that local zoning ordinances can be used to trample private property rights and equal protection, while embracing the Ohio Constitution’s protection of property and equality at a higher level than the federal constitution.

Specifically, in observing that an unlimited number of unruly, but barely-related family members could live together while a peaceful collection of students or even senior citizens could not, the court ruled as follows:

  • “[U]nder the Ohio Constitution, private property rights are fundamental rights to be strongly protected, such that “homeowners have a constitutionally protected property interest in running their residential leasing businesses free from unreasonable and arbitrary interference from the government” and “the free use of property is guaranteed by the Ohio Constitution.”
  • “[T]he City’s dwelling limit only focuses on the type of relationship between those living together in a home, and as such, is both over- and under-inclusive with respect to either of these interests. The Court thus concludes the dwelling limit is an “unreasonable and arbitrary” restriction on the issue of property.”
  • “[T]he limit is arbitrary, unduly oppressive, fails to substantially advance the avowed government interests of reducing population density or targeting specific issues with college-aged inhabitants, and treats similarly-situated homeowners and tenants differently without any justifiable basis. Consequently, the Court finds the dwelling limit is unconstitutional, as applied, and therefore unenforceable.”

Judge Knepp’s decision paves the way for overcoming overly-restrictive zoning regulations, and especially those, common in Ohio cities and college towns, that forbid unrelated adults from living together.

The 1851 Center draws a distinction between zoning regulations that prohibit homeowners from using their property to directly inflict harm on others and regulations simply aimed at social engineering.

“This regulation is aimed at government-controlled social engineering, i.e. keeping ‘the wrong kind of people’ out of certain neighborhoods, rather than land use. Unruly behavior should be directly regulated, rather than regulated on the basis of the relationships between those who live together,” added Thompson.  “Ohioans should not be forced to pay higher rent or endure longer commutes due to such arbitrary regulations.”

The case was brought in cooperation with Andrew Mayle of Mayle Law, and supported by an amicus brief from the Ohio Association of Realtors.

Read the Court’s Order HERE .

Read the 1851 Center’s Motion for Summary Judgment HERE .

###

The  1851 Center for Constitutional Law is a non-profit, non-partisan legal center dedicated to protecting the constitutional rights of Ohioans from government abuse. The 1851 Center litigates constitutional issues related to property rights, regulation, taxation, and search and seizures.

Fourth Amendment prohibits state’s mandate making all business records “available at all times” to state agents

January 22, 2018: Columbus, OH – A federal circuit court late yesterday ruled that Ohio’s policies demanding private business records – – without a warrant or any evidence of wrongdoing – – violate the Fourth Amendment’s protection from unreasonable searches and seizures.

The ruling, made by a unanimous panel of the Sixth Circuit and authored by Judge David McKeague, addresses 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 protect their privacy and property, especially when such demands are made on-the-spot and without a warrant.

In a 23 page decision, the three-judge panel struck down a statute declaring “all books, forms, and records, and all other sources of information with regard to the business shall at all times be available for inspection,” and another demanding “free access to the books and papers and other sources of information with regard to the business.”

The Court explained as follows:

  • “Business owners cannot be forced to choose between being arrested on the spot and standing on their Fourth Amendment rights.”
  • “[The challenged statutes] are both unnecessary to furthering Ohio’s state interest and too broad in scope to withstand facial Fourth
  • Amendment scrutiny . . . both statutes effectively allow searches of dealers’ entire businesses . . . They therefore do not provide any standards to guide inspectors in the exercise of their authority to search.”
  • “The provisions’ seemingly unlimited scope, along with the grant of free access to such information at all times, does not sufficiently constrain the discretion of the inspectors.”

“This ruling essentially affirms that while government may request some basic record-keeping, reporting, and inspection of inventory purchased from the public that has been reported stolen, state officials cannot walk into a business without a warrant or evidence of wrong-doing and demand to review our papers, cell phones, laptops, or other business records,” said Maurice Thompson, Executive Director of the 1851 Center. “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 these records.”

Thompson added “this precedent will guard warrantless searches of business records in all industries, since the Court of Appeals decision acknowledged that even ‘closely regulated’ industries are entitled to greater protection. Ohioans should feel free to decline invasive and costly government searches without fear of retaliation.”

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 losing their business licenses and being fined and prosecuted for refusing to turn over cell phones, laptops, and paper records simply “upon demand” of state enforcement agents.

Read the Court’s Order HERE.

Listen to the Oral Argument HERE.

Read the Brief HERE.

Watch our video describing the impact of this case:

###

The 1851 Center for Constitutional Law is a non-profit, non-partisan legal center dedicated to protecting the constitutional rights of Ohioans from government abuse. The 1851 Center litigates constitutional issues related to property rights, voting rights, regulation, taxation, and search and seizures.

Legal Center: Fees that City’s homeowners were forced to pay to fund unconstitutional “point of sale” inspections must now be returned

Cleveland, OH – A federal court certified a class action lawsuit against the City of Bedford, Ohio, explaining that all homeowners who were forced to endure government searches as a precondition to the sale of their homes are entitled to demand refunds of illegal “Point of Sale” inspection fees.

This ruling paves the way for the return of inspections fees to all affected homeowners, rather than just those who filed the lawsuit.

The Order, made by Judge Benita Pearson of the Northern District of Ohio, confirms class action lawsuits may be maintained against city governments who extort their citizens and businesses in a widespread manner, such as through violating their Fourth Amendment rights through sweeping city-wide home inspection requirements.

Specifically, Judge Pearson certified classes of all individuals or businesses that have been subject to the inspections and paid inspection fees to the City of Bedford in conjunction with the inspections, explaining that “Citizens are entitled to “return of Point of Sale and Rental Inspection fees illegal paid to [the City of Bedford].”

“Class action litigation is an excellent method for average citizens to even the playing field when fighting back against their corrupt and otherwise indifferent local governments. This ruling confirms that Ohio cities must be held just as responsible to their citizens as big corporations are to their customers,” said Maurice Thompson, Executive Director of the 1851 Center.

In May of 2016, the 1851 Center for Constitutional Law moved 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 could sell their homes to even the most informed and willing buyers.

In each case, the Cities had threatened to criminally prosecute and even imprison homeowners who sold their homes without first submitting to and passing city inspections. In Bedford, the City also claimed the power to block home sales on account of “architectural style and detail,” “color,” and lack of “orderly appearance.”

Within days of the 1851 Center’s lawsuits, each city rescinded its policies. However each has refused to return illegal inspection fees.

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.

“Local governments 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 every moral and constitutional entitlement to exclude others, even government agents, from their property,” adds Thompson. “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.”

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.

Read the Court’s Order HERE

Read the Property Owners’ Motion for Preliminary Injunction HERE

Check out Maurice Thompson discussing the case against Ohio governments’ forced home inspections below:

###

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.