King Lincoln Bronzeville Neighborhood Association et al v. J. Kenneth Blackwell et al

Filing 93

RESPONSE in Opposition re 92 MOTION to Quash and Request for Immediate Relief 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. (Attachments: # 1 Appendix Excerpt of Transcript) (Arnebeck, Clifford)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

King Lincoln Brownsville Neighborhood Association, et al.
Case No. 2:06-CV-00745
Plaintiff,
v.

Judge Marbley
Magistrate Judge Kemp

Ohio Secretary of State Kenneth Blackwell, et al.

Defendant.
PLAINTIFFS’ MEMORANDUM CONTRA OHIO CHAMBER OF COMMERCE AND
PARTNERSHIP FOR OHIO’S FUTURE MOTION TO QUASH SUBPOENAS, AND
REQUEST FOR AN EMERGENCY ORDER COMPELLING THE IMMEDIATE
PRODUCTION OF THE REQUESTED INFORMATION
Pursuant to the authority of this court’s order of September 19, 2008 (Document 65) authorizing
such further depositions as may be warranted in the judgment of the plaintiffs and the defendant
Ohio Secretary of State Jennifer Brunner in the aftermath of the deposition of Michael Connell,

And pursuant to the publicly announced directive of Ohio Secretary of State Jennifer Brunner, in
the presence of Ohio Attorney General Nancy Rogers and trial counsel Richard Coglianese that
matters addressing fraud in a current election should be addressed directly to Ohio Secretary of
State Jennifer Brunner,

Plaintiffs’ trial counsel requested and, first thing in the morning of November 1, 2010, obtained
agreement and authorization from Ohio Secretary of State Jennifer Brunner to issue subpoenas to
the Chamber of Commerce as ancillary to the deposition subpoena authorized, issued and served

1

upon Karl Rove on October 24, 2010.

At a hearing before the Ohio Elections Commission of a complaint filed by plaintiffs’ trial
counsel against Partnership for Ohio’s Future which has made $1.45 million dollars on TV air
time of two Republican candidates, Justice Maureen O’Connor and Justice Judith Lanzinger, for
the Ohio Supreme Court. Bradley Smith as counsel for Partnership for Ohio’s Future in rebuttal
stated that:
“the Partnership for Ohio’s Future is making its donors available.
As you know, it’s not required by Ohio law, but we made them
available to anybody who’s asked. Mr. Arnebeck doesn’t need a
subpoena; will be happy to give them the list if he asks.”

See Attachment A, page 4: Certified transcript of an excerpt of the probable cause panel hearing
before the Ohio elections commission in Arnebeck v. Partnership for Ohio’s Future, Case No.
2010 E – 122.

In an article in the Free Press.org King Lincoln plaintiffs’ co-counsel Robert Fitrakis, who was
present during the hearing before the Ohio Elections Commission in this matter and King
Lincoln co-plaintiff Harvey Wasserman, these journalists state that:
Brad Smith, the Chamber’s Chief Counsel, promised in front of the
Ohio Elections Commission, that the Chamber would produce the
names of the donors it has failed to disclose this year.
In his “ten-second rebuttal” before the Election Commission’s
probable cause panel, Smith complained that Arnebeck never
asked him for the list.
In the hall after the hearing, Linda Woggan, the Chambers Vice
President for Governmental Affairs, promised Arnebeck that she
would provide the list of secret donors as well.

2

Arnebeck specifically asked for the list in electronic form so it can
be disseminated to the media prior to election Day.
In the wake of Smith’s promise, the commission voted 3 to 1 to deny Arnebeck’s
probable cause motion demanding that list. . . .

When this information was not delivered in due course subsequent to the hearing before the Ohio
Elections Commission, plaintiffs’ trial counsel prepared and served subpoenas upon Partnership
for Ohio’s Future and the Ohio Chamber of Commerce to secure this information so that it
could be made available to the public before the election of November 2, 2010.

The subpoenas that had been served at 11:30 a.m. commanded performance by 2 p.m.,
November 1, 2010. At approximately 1:30 p.m. Chamber’s counsel Bradley Smith called to
advise that he was working on material in an effort to produce it by 2 p.m., but that in any case it
would be produced by 3 p.m.

At approximately 3:30 p.m. a courier arrived at plaintiffs’ trial counsel’s office and delivered a
package containing, not the list of contributors that had been promised but rather the
respondents’ Motion to Quash Subpoena to Produce Documents, Information, or Objects.

The immediate production of the requested materials in electronic format is fully consistent with
the free speech regime that included direct independent expenditures out of corporate treasuries
envisioned by Justice Kennedy on behalf of the majority in the case of Citizens United v. Federal
Elections Commission an essential component of which was immediate disclosure of
contributions.

3

Furthermore, the immediate production of this information is necessary to protect some portion
of the voting public from the impending effect of unprecedented flow of political commercials
the source of which has been camouflaged. As a result of this subterfuge the public is being
denied the opportunity to consider the source and recognize the special interests behind such
advertising.

The relevance of this information sought by the plaintiffs is for the purpose of aiding in the
examination of Karl Rove in his deposition noticed for November 29, 2010 and inquiry as to the
extent of Mr. Rove’s orchestration on behalf of the national Republican coordinated campaign to
maximize its influence and control of the federal and state governments through the coordinated
expenditure of funds provided by the Chamber of Commerce and other groups working under
the guidance of Tom Donohue, the President and CEO of the United States Chamber of
Commerce.

The subject of the present discovery is to understand the current manifestation of the ongoing
under the Ohio Corrupt Practices Act with respect to which plaintiffs’ trial counsel has
previously issued document hold notices to the Ohio Chamber of Commerce, the United States
Chamber of Commerce, and the United States Department of Justice with respect to the White
House e-mails of Karl Rove.

Respectfully submitted,
/s/Clifford O. Arnebeck, Jr.
_________________________________
Clifford O. Arnebeck, Jr. (0033391)

4

Trial Attorney for Plaintiffs
1021 E. Broad St
Columbus, OH 432 05
614- 224-8771

VERIFICATION WITH RESPECT TO STATEMENTS OF FACT IN THE
FOREGOING MEMORANDUM
I declare under penalties of perjury that the statements of fact attributed to plaintiff’s trial
counsel contained in the foregoing memorandum are true and correct to the best of my
knowledge and belief.
/s/Clifford O. Arnebeck, Jr.
_______________________________________
Clifford O. Arnebeck Jr. (0033391)

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
A copy of the foregoing was served upon counsel for the parties and respondents through
the court’s electronic filing system, this 2nd day of November 2010.
/s/Clifford O. Arnebeck, Jr.
_______________________________________
Clifford O. Arnebeck Jr. (0033391)

5