1. This is an original action brought pursuant to O Const IV Sec. 3(B)(1)(d) seeking immediate issuance of a writ of prohibition against Respondents individually and/or collectively and further seeking, pursuant to O Const IV Sec. 3(B)(1)(b) and/or O.R.C. Chapter 2731, immediate issuance of a writ of mandamus against Respondents individually and/or collectively.
PARTIES, JURISDICTION AND VENUE
2. Relator Cynthia Balas-Bratton ("'Relator") is a duly qualified Democratic electorate in Stark County who, on February 11, 2014, timely filed a Protest pursuant to C.R.C. 3513.05 (and/or O.R.C. 3501.39(A)(1) and/or (2) and/or (3)) against the Candidacy of George T. Maier ("Candidate Maier") for the public office of Stark County Sheriff in the May 6, 2014 Democratic Party primary election.
3. Respondents Demetrious A. St. John ("St. John"), Samuel J. Ferruccio, Frank C. Braden and William S. Cline (collectively "Board Members") are and have been at all times relevant duly appointed and serving Members of Respondent Stark County Board of Elections.
4. Respondent Stark County Board of Elections ("BOE") is the "Board" referred to in O.R.C. 3501.01(S) and has been duly appointed pursuant to O.R.C. 3501.06.
5. The acts of commission and/or omission which gave rise to this action occurred in Stark County.
6. Jurisdiction is vested with this Court; and this action is properly venued in this Court.
BACKGROUND FACTS AND GENERAL ALLEGATIONS
7. As to Relator's pending Protest, the BOE is acting as a gua^i-judicial body and therefore is obliged, as a matter of law, to afford due process to Relator/Protestor (and to Candidate Maier} ; i.e., no BOE Member may either be biased for or against any party (here, Relatcr/Protestor and Candidate Maier) or be otherwise predisposed as to his, her or their ultimate post-hearing decision on any statutory protest pending before the BOE, and, the BOE must afford all parties fair opportunity to have witnesses subpoenaed and to otherwise adequately prepare for hearing.
8. On February 17, 2014, the BOE held a public meeting regarding, inter alia, Relator's pending Protest.
9. On February 12, 2014 (and prior to the aforesaid February 17, 2014 BOE meeting), Relator had made a timely written request cf the BOE, pursuant to O.R.C. 3501.11 (J.), for the issuance and service of two subpoenas duces tecum, one to Harrison County Sheriff Ronald J. Myers and one to Candidate Maier.
10. During that February 17, 2014 meeting, the EOE, without lawful authority to do so and acting "sua sponte", refused to issue the requested subpoena to Candidate Maier and "deleted" from the requested subpoena to Harrison County Sheriff Myers three of Relator's four categories of duces tecum documents.
11. Also during that same February 17, 2014 meeting, the BOE, again acting "sua sponte" set the hearing on Relator's Protest for February 21, 2014.
12. On February 12, 2014 and again on February 13, 2314 (and also prior to the aforesaid February 17, 2014 BOE meeting), Relator, upon due process grounds, had timely made written requests of the BOE (and more particularly of BOE Member St. John) that BOE Member St, John abstain from voting on Relator's pending Protest and from otherwise participating in the BOE's deliberations thereon.
13. The basis for the requests referred to in paragraph no. 12 hereinabove includes the facts that, while simultaneously serving as a BOE Member, St. John: (1) had, as a Member of the Stark County Democratic Central Committee ("DCC"), twice voted (both before and after Usurper Maier's November 6, 2013 removal by the Ohio Supreme Court) to appoint Maier as Sheriff; (2) had, also as a DCC Member and prior to his first DCC vote for Maier, signed a letter to the DCC wherein he requested that his fellow DCC Members "join [him] in supporting the most qualified person to serve as Stark County Sheriff . . . George Maier"; (3) had thereafter, during a February 12, 2014 interview with The Repository, publicly stated "I've always believed that [Candidate Maier] met the qualifications''; and (4) had thereafter, during a February 13, 2014 interview with The Alliance Review, publicly stated "It's obvious I'm a Democratic Central Committee member, and its public record I have voted twice to have (George) Maier appointed as sheriff. But that's my personal opinion" and then St. John went onto disingenuously assert "I have net made a decision on this . . . yet".
14. On February 18, 2314, BOE Member St. John, by and through private counsel (and notwithstanding the fact that his statutory
counsel is, pursuant to O.R.C. 309.09(A), the Stark County
Prosecuting Attorney) declined and refused the Relator's recusal request referred to in paragraph no. 12 hereinabove; and, duringthe BOE's aforesaid February 17, 2014 meeting, BOE Member St. John actively participated in that meeting and joined his fellow BOE Members in unanimously voting, inter alia: (1) to "sua sponte" deny issuance of the aforesaid subpoena to Candidate Maier; (2) to "sua sponte" "delete" from the subpoena to Harrison County Sheriff Myers three of Relator's four categories of duces tecum documents; and (3) to "sua sponte" set the subject Protest hearing for February 21, 2014.
15. On February 17, 2014, immediately following zhe BCE's meeting of that same dare, Relator/Protestor filed a Notice of prohibition Objection with the BOE through which she formally objected, on due process grounds, to BOE Member St. John's past and future participation in the Protest pending before the BOE, to the BOE' s denial, in large part, cf her subpoena requests and to the BOE's setting of the subject Protest hearing for only four business days thereafter*
16. The BOE has, to date, failed to act upon the objections referred to in paragraph no, 15 hereinabove and has thereby denied same "sub silentio".
17. As to the herein requested writ of prohibition, BOE Member St. John, regarding the aforesaid February 21, 2014 Protest hearing, is about to exercise quasi-judicial power unauthorized by law by participating in a quasi-judicial proceeding notwithstanding his demonstrated and publicly announced pro-Maier bias and attendant pro-Maier predisposition as set forth in paragraph no. 13 hereinabove.
18. As to rhe herein requested writ of prohibition, the BOE, regarding the aforesaid February 21, 2014 Protest hearing, is about to exercise quasi-judicial power unauthorized by law by setting the Protest hearing without first affording Relator her due process right to subpoena witnesses and to otherwise be adequately prepared for that hearing.
19. As to the herein requested writ of mandamus, the BOE, regarding the aforesaid February 21, 2014 protest hearing, has a clear legal duty to afford Relator due process by and through issuance and service of her requested subpoenas and by and through thereafter setting her Protest for hearing with allowance of adequate time for her to prepare therefor; and, Relator has a clear legal right to demand she be afforded such due process.
20. As to all of the matters referred to in paragraphs nos. 17 through I9, inclusive, hereinabove, denial of the requested writs will result in injury to Relator for which no other adequate remedy exists in the ordinary course of law.
FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF
(WRIT OF PROHIBITION)
21. Relator incorporates herein by reference the allegations contained in paragraphs nos. 1 through 20, inclusive, hereinabove.
22. Relator is, as a matter of law, entitled to immediate issuance cf an alternative writ and/or of a peremptory writ of prohibition prohibiting BOE Member St* John from voting on Relator's pending Protest and from otherwise participating in the BOE's deliberations thereon.
SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF
(WRIT OF PROHIBITION)
23. Relator incorporates herein by reference the allegations contained in paragraphs nos. 1 through 22, inclusive, hereinabove.
24. Relator is, as a matter cf law, entitled to immediate (issuance of an alternative writ and/or of a peremptory writ of prohibition prohibiting the BOE from going forward with its Protest hearing on February 21, 2014.
24. Relator is, as a matter cf law, entitled to immediate (issuance of an alternative writ and/or of a peremptory writ of prohibition prohibiting the BOE from going forward with its Protest hearing on February 21, 2014.
THIRD CLAIM FOR RELIEF
(WRIT OF MANDAMUS)
25. Relator incorporates herein by reference The allegations contained in paragraphs nos* 1 through 24, inclusive, hereinabove.
26. Relator is, as a matter of law, entitled to immediate issuance of an alternative writ and/or of a peremptory writ of mandamus mandating that the BOE forthwith issue and serve the two subpoenas duces tecum requested by Relator.
FOURTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF
(WRIT OF MANDAMUS)
27. Relator incorporates herein by reference the allegations contained in paragraphs nos. 1 through 26, inclusive, hereinabove.
28. Relator is, as a matter of law, entitled to immediate issuance of an alternative writ and/or of a peremptory writ of mandamus mandating that the BOE reschedule its Protest hearing for a date and time after its issuance and confirmed service of the two subpoenas duces tecum requested by Relator.
WHEREFORE, Relator respectfully requests relief from this Court as follows:
(A) On her First Claim for Relief, immediate issuance of an alternative writ and/or of a peremptory writ of prohibition prohibiting 30E Member St. John from voting on Relator's pending and from otherwise participating in the BOE's deliberations thereon.
(B) On her Second Claim for Relief, immediate issuance of an alternative writ and/or of a peremptory writ of prohibition prohibiting the BOE from going forward with its Protest hearing on February 21, 2014.
(C) On her Third Claim for Relief, immediate issuance of an alternative writ and/or of a peremptory writ of mandamus mandating that the BOE forthwith issue and serve the two subpoenas duces tecum requested by Relator.
(D) On her Fourth Claim for Relief, immediate issuance of an alternative writ and/or of a peremptory writ of mandamus mandating that the BOE reschedule its Protest hearing for a date and time after its issuance and confirmed service of the two subpoenas duces tecum requested by Relator.
(E) On all of her Claims for Relief, costs and all such other and further relief to which she nay be entitled under law or in equity.
No comments:
Post a Comment