Professional Documents
Culture Documents
XENIA, OHIO
CIVIL DIVISION
Virgil Vaduva )
1247 June Dr. )
Xenia, OH 45385 )
) Case No. 2010 CV 0209
Plaintiff, )
v. )
)
City of Xenia ) Judge: John Kessler
101 N. Detroit Sst. )
Xenia, OH 45385 )
)
Xenia City Council )
101 N. Detroit St. )
Xenia, OH 45385 )
)
Xenia City Manager )
101 N. Detroit St. )
Xenia, OH 45385 )
)
Defendants. )
)
deny Plaintiff’s motion for order enjoining Defendants from paying Avakian Consulting,
and asks this court to grant Plaintiff’s motion for the reasons set forth herein.
in editorializing on several topics regarding Plaintiff and his motives for filing the initial
complaint in this case, neither of those topics being related to the merits of the case and
the evidence presented by Plaintiff. It was Mr. Percival, an agent for the Defendants
commenting first to media, specifically to Dayton Daily News, on the fact that Plaintiff is
a political candidate. Meanwhile, Plaintiff had taken obvious and painful steps to make
anonymous comments and postings regarding the complaint, all for avoiding the
appearance of impropriety.
attempting to slow down the progress of the case, knowing time is of the essence; such
practices have been condemned by the U.S. Supreme court: “Due to sloth, inattention, or
desire to seize tactical advantage, lawyers have long engaged in dilatory practices…the
glacial place of much litigation breeds frustration with the Federal Courts, and ultimately,
disrespect for the law.” Roadway Express v. Pipe, 447 U.S. 752 at 757 (1982)
While defendants publicly claim that the contract with Avakian Consulting is
sound, Plaintiff had already presented evidence which shows without a doubt that
Defendants are engaged in a fraudulent agreement with Avakian, using the contract as the
means to the ultimate goals of directly influencing the results of an election. This is
sustained by (1) the Defendants’ obstinate rush to sign the contract with Avakian
Consulting immediately after passing ordinance 10-02, and (2) minutes from Defendants’
meetings where agents for Defendants said in plain words that the purpose for the
relationship with Avakian was to “help pass the levy.” (see case exhibits E, F, G)
Avakian Consulting is a political consultancy organization, with the primary
purpose of advising and helping municipalities and school districts with the passing
levies and influencing the general public to “Vote YES” on levy proposals.
Due to the fraudulent use of contract law, and the evidence presented in the case,
Plaintiff asks this court to void the Defendants’ contract with Avakian Consulting.
rights to Pro Se representation. Pro Se representation rights are critical to the freedom
and liberty of U.S. citizens and “the practice of law is an occupation of common right.”
“The right to file a lawsuit Pro Se is one of the most important rights under the
Constitution and laws.” Elmore v. McCammon (1986) 640 F. Supp. 905; and “there can
are attempting to use technicalities in order to have the complaint dismissed; it has been
held that Pro Se pleadings are to be considered without regards to technicality and that
pro se litigants are not to be held to the same high standards as attorneys. Jenkins v.
McKeithen, 395 U.S. 411, 421 (1959); Picking v. Pennsylvania R. Co., 151 Fed 2nd 240;
As Plaintiff has not claimed to represent anyone other than himself, he has a well-
established and fundamental civil right to Pro Se representation and is exercising his
constitutional rights; he is well within the bounds of Pro Se litigation and is not “engaged
Throughout his complaint and following proceedings, Plaintiff has held that
While R.C. Title 7 outlines the specific general instances in which a taxpayer can
bring suit against a municipality, the language is specifically aimed at a taxpayer bringing
a suit “on behalf of the municipal corporation.” (R.C. 733.59) As already shown,
Plaintiff’s action cannot be a “taxpayer action” as defined by R.C. 733.59 since Plaintiff
filed a Pro Se complaint in his own name, does not claim to represent anyone other than
himself – not the entire municipality – nor is he attempting to prosecute the Defendants
on behalf of others.
carries the statutory burden to seek “an order of injunction” should the corporation be in
Plaintiff maintains that due to the time constraints and the special circumstances
surrounding this case, (1) Plaintiff’s complaint falls outside of R.C. 733.59, that (2) due
to the Law Director’s violation of R.C. 733.56 Plaintiff had reasonable cause to consider
a request filed with Defendants’ Law Director futile, that (3) the Plaintiff’s complaint
cannot be defined by this court to be a “taxpayer action,” and (4) Defendants’ violation of
Title 35 entitles Plaintiff to stand and pursue urgent injunctive relief in this court.
IV. COURT JURISDICTION
It is worth noting that the purposes of Ohio Election Laws as well as Federal
Election Laws are to broadly provide a “fair playing field” and financial accountability
for those involved in the electoral process. When the Defendants specifically and
government employees in general engage in the expenditure of public funds for the
purposes of surveying the electoral landscape and hiring political consultants as means to
“help pass a levy” they acquire an unfair advantage, are in violation of R.C. Title 35 and
are attempting to directly influence the outcome of an election. While Defendants are
free under Ohio Law to create a Political Action Committee and pursue private donors
and private funds for surveying and advertising purposes, they are instead using public
funds to “help pass a levy.” This sets a dangerous precedent and puts Plaintiff and the
general public, which may be opposed to the political platform espoused by the
Even in the absence of some of the “magic words” referenced by Defendants and
defined in footnote 52 of Buckley v. Valeo 424 U.S. 1, 44, (“vote for,” “elect,” “support,”
“cast your ballot for,” “Smith for Congress,” “vote against,” “defeat,” and “reject”) the
Defendants’ actions still amount to sham issue advocacy through the publication of
pamphlets, videos, and other communications designed to directly influence the outcome
of the election by advertising the negative outcome and what could happen in theory,
should the Plaintiff refuse to go along with the Defendant’s plan to pass Issue 7. One
example of Plaintiff’s issue advocacy is the title of the pamphlet included by Defendants
in the Plaintiff’s utility bill, “Keep Xenia Safe,” which amounts to issue advocacy in that
Defendants are expressly advertising that a “no” vote on Issue 7 will make Plaintiff and
his family unsafe; the Defendants’ “Keep Xenia Safe” words are implying and
advocating that only a “yes” vote on the part of the Plaintiff can bring about safety.
“danger to ‘fair and effective government’” and concluded that this danger “posed by
partisan political conduct on the part of federal employees charged with administering the
law was a sufficiently important concern to justify broad restrictions on the employees'
right of partisan political association.” CSC v. Letter Carriers, 413 U.S. 548 (1973)
The court reaffirmed in Bucley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1 (1976) that “…Congress
could legitimately conclude that the avoidance of the appearance of improper influence is
Another important thing to note is that Plaintiff also serves as the Treasurer for
for various principled and ideological reasons, his desire and goals to oppose Issue 7 in
the May 4 2010 election on a “level playing field” is violated by the Defendants’ actions
able to compete in the electoral process on a “level playing field” against a government
entity that has free access to large sums of public funds, which are being freely used in
order to create political and electoral advantage for a particular ballot issue.
Plaintiff maintains that Defendants are in violation of Ohio Revised Code Title
35, (1) that Plaintiff’s complaint does not fall under the ORC 733.59 provisions, (2)
Defendants are engaged in electioneering and (3) creating an unfair electoral advantage in
their favor. Plaintiff therefore respectfully asks this court to enjoy Defendants from
further violation of Title 35 and the Greene County Board of election from placing Issue
In 1988 the Ohio Elections Committee issued advisory opinion in 88-3 clarifying
some of the criteria under which public funds may be used in certain situations. The
opinion (see attachment) established per R.C. 3517.18 that (1) money from the Ohio
Political Fund are “public funds,” that (2) public funds may not be used to assist a private
enterprise, and that (3) public funds may not be used to “influence directly the result of
any election.”
The Plaintiff consequently maintains that (1) municipality funds in the control of
the Defendants are to be considered “public funds” and that (2) the Defendants action to
spend such funds for the purpose mentioned by Defendants, namely “help pass a levy” is
in direct violation of the OEC advisory opinion 88-3 and R.C. 3517 .18(1) and (2).
The aforementioned opinion also holds that “when there is doubt as to the right to
expend public moneys, the doubt must be resolved in favor of the public and against
the grant of authority.” State ex rel Locker v. Menning, 95 Ohio St. 97 (1916).
Defendants’ insistence that the expenditure of funds was for helping with the
the two actions expressed by Defendants during the course of several meetings (minutes
attached to complaint as exhibits E, F, G), namely “help pass a levy” and “improve the
city’s image” cannot be coupled into one exploit under the guise of a contractual
agreement and still pass the litmus test required by R.C. 3517.18 and of the OEC
advisory opinion.
Consequently, Plaintiff maintains that Defendants have violated R.C. Title 35 and
is respectfully asking this court to enjoin Defendants and the Greene County Board of
Elections from placing Issue 7 on the May 4 ballot, from electioneering, and from
continuing the disbursal of public funds to any party for the purpose of directly
Respectfully submitted,
___________________________
Virgil Vaduva, Defendant
1247 June Dr.
Xenia, OH 45385