King Lincoln Bronzeville Neighborhood Association et al v. J. Kenneth Blackwell et al
REPLY to Response to 102 MOTION for Reconsideration re 101 Opinion and Order and Request for Emergency Hearing filed by Plaintiffs Willis Brown, Miles Curtiss, Paul Gregory, King Lincoln Bronzeville Neighborhood Association, League of Young Voters/Columbus, Ohio Voter Rights Alliance for Democracy, Matthew Segal & Harvey Wasserman. (Arnebeck, Clifford)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO, EASTERN DIVISION
KING LINCOLN BROWNSVILLE
NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION, ET AL.
CASE NO. 2:06-CV-00745
MAGISTRATE JUDGE KEMP
OHIO SECRETARY OF STATE
JENNIFER BRUNNER, ET AL.
PLAINTIFFS’ REPLY TO THE OHIO CHAMBER OF COMMERCE MEMORANDUM
CONTRA PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF THE MAGISTRATE
JUDGE’S DECISION AND ORDER QUASHING PLAINTIFF’ SUBPOENA TO THE
OHIO CHAMBER OF COMMERCE
This motion presents a discovery issue in the context of a civil rights case. If the Ohio Chamber
actually believes that the document hold notice issued to it in 2007 and reaffirmed by Plaintiffs’
trial attorney in April 2010 were not properly grounded, it should present its arguments in that
regard to the court in a motion seeking relief from the obligation to hold its documents. That
argument in this context is not appropriate.
Plaintiffs’ trial attorney on behalf of Ronnie Dugger’s1 Alliance for Democracy successfully
Ronnie Dugger was the founding editor and former publisher of the Texas Observer,
one of the most respected and honored independent political journals in the United States. In a
November 7, 1988 article, “Annals of Democracy Counting Votes,” appearing in the New Yorker
Magazine, Dugger explained the danger presented to American democracy by electronic voting
technology. In August 1995 Dugger in an article appearing in The Nation Magazine called for
the creation of a national populist movement, following the principles of nonviolence espoused
by Gandhi and Martin Luther King Jr., to counter the rule of global corporations over the
American polity and economy. This became the basis for the creation of the Alliance for
Democracy, soon endorsed by Dugger’s colleague at the Texas Observer, Molly Ivins, and
Dugger’s colleague in the Green Party, Ralph Nader.
litigated for five years against the Ohio Chamber and its Citizens for a Strong Ohio concerning
their illegal expenditures amounting to some $16 million over three election cycles from
2000–2004 in Ohio Supreme Court elections. The highest state and federal courts of Ohio
upheld the Alliance’s position in this litigation. See e.g. Citizens for Ohio, et al. v. Marsh, USCA
6th Cir. Case No. 04-3112, in which Judge Cole for the panel took judicial notice that Citizens for
a Strong Ohio was a political action committee, and Common Cause/Ohio v. Ohio Elections
Commission, 2002-Ohio-5965, decision by the Ohio Tenth District Court of Appeals.
In this case Plaintiffs have submitted ample evidence upon which there is reason to believe that
Dugger as Chair of the Alliance for Democracy Clean Money Campaign in 2000 authorized the
filing by plaintiffs’ trial attorney of a companion complaint to that previously brought by
Common Cause/Ohio against the Ohio Chamber and Citizens for Strong Ohio who were then
engaged in a $7 million saturation campaign of defamation against Justice Alice Robie Resnick’s
Dugger, in another article, “How They Could Steal the Election This Time” in the August 16,
2004 issue of The Nation Magazine, predicted the theft of the 2004 presidential election. Dugger
personally covered the filing of the contest before the Ohio Supreme Court of the Presidential
and Ohio Chief Justice elections of 2004 on December 13, 2004, and testified before U.S.
Representative John Conyers’ hearing at the Columbus City Hall following that the filing.
Dugger co-chaired the Alliance for Democracy Honest Elections Campaign with plaintiffs’ trial
attorney, then serving as co-chair of the Alliance for Democracy. The Ohio Honest Elections
Campaign of the Alliance was the 501(c)(3) funding vehicle for the Ohio Supreme Court contest
of election Moss v. Bush et al., 104 Ohio St.3d 597, 2004-Ohio-6792, Moss v. Moyer, 2004Ohio-2106, and Moss v. Bush, et al., 105 Ohio St.3d 458, 2005-Ohio-2419 and later motion to
intervene in Ohio Democratic Party v. Blackwell et al. Case No 2:04-cv-1055 in the U.S. District
Court SDOH, as well as research of the 2004 ballots which was part of the foundation for this
2006 suit, initially filed for the purpose of saving the 2004 ballots from destruction.
Dugger also provided the inspiration for the formation of the Ohio Voting Rights Alliance for
Democracy composed of African Americans who personally experienced and witnessed the
targeted voter suppression of the 2004 Ohio election.
the Chamber has made expenditures to influence Ohio elections in the 2010 cycle that were
coordinated with Karl Rove acting in an unofficial defacto capacity as head of the national
coordinated Republican campaign. The requested information is relevant to the plaintiffs’ case
alleging an ongoing civil rights conspiracy against them.
Furthermore, the requested discovery is permissible under the order agreed to between plaintiffs
and Ohio Secretary of State Jennifer Brunner. It was agreed to by Ohio Secretary of State
Jennifer Brunner pursuant to the terms of that order. See plaintiffs reply to the memorandum
Contra state of Ohio been filed concurrently herewith.
/s/Clifford O. Arnebeck, Jr.
Clifford O. Arnebeck Jr. (0033391)
Trial Attorney for Plaintiffs
1021 East Broad Street
Columbus, Ohio 43205
Robert J. Fitrakis (0076796)
1021 East Broad Street
Columbus, Ohio 43205
Henry W. Eckhart (0020202)
50 West Broad Street, Suite 2117
Columbus, Ohio 43215
Counsel for Plaintiffs
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
A copy of the foregoing was served upon counsel for the parties and respondent through the
court’s electronic filing system, this 3rd day of January 2011.
/s/ Clifford O. Arnebeck, Jr.
Clifford O. Arnebeck, Jr.
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?