Filed under: — tkm February 9, 2006 @ 5:0 am


Follow the proceedings through the Supreme Court on the link below:

Click:  2009-0017 Teresa Mollette et al v Portsmouth City Council et al

posted by tkm 3-4-09

From the minute I heard about the injustice that was done to the citizens of Portsmouth, Ohio by the 4th District Appellant Court by overturning the ruling of Judge Marshall, Scioto County Common Pleas Court, on the Marting Building I made my decision this case would go to the Supreme Court.

Below are two links containing the Ohio Supreme Court appeal documents:

CLICK: 12-24-08 Memorandum In Support of Jurisdiction Of Appeallants

CLICK: 12-24-08 Notice of Appeal-Fourth Appellate District

posted by tkm 1-3-09

For the citizens of Portsmouth JUSTICE was not part of the Decision and Judgment filed November 19th, 2008 with the Scioto County Clerk of Courts by the 4th District Circuit Court. This Decision and Judgment should have interrelated back to City Council’s violations of the Sunshine Laws when they purchased the Marting Building during Executive Sessions cutoff from the public, the Portsmouth City Charter does not allow Executive Sessions not open to the public, and in round-robin sessions that were conspired to conceal the intent of Portsmouth City Council to swindle the citizens, the taxpayers, of Portsmouth.

The actual issues, violations of the Sunshine laws, presented in the initial case were considered MOOT by the 4th District Circuit Court’s Decision and Judgment. The decision filed by the 4th District Circuit Court on November 19th avoided the real issues by ruling strictly on a potential technicality instead of the merits of the case.

The 4th District Circuit Court Decision and Judgment (See Below) is best described in the text of the ruling on page 3 “Facts” footnote, ‘To describe this case a “procedural morass” is a vast understatement. Accordingly, we apologize for the opinion’s lack of both brevity and clarity. However, knowledge of the facts surrounding the previous proceedings is necessary to understand the basis for our decision here.’ Why, after almost 5 months since the hearing, does this opinion provide a lack of brevity and clarity? Why, would a higher court allow such an injustice to the citizens of Portsmouth, Ohio?

I just have to say I am very disappointed in our higher legal system, 4th District Circuit Court, if this is their normal standard. Judge Marshall heard the real issues involved in the case, Sunshine Law violations, and ruled by the law and against the illegal acts. All Bob and I want is justice to be served on the original intent of our initial injunction, which is the Violation of the Sunshine Laws and the use of Executive Sessions by City Council. To us these issues are not MOOT as stated by the 4th District Circuit Court!!! I hope through the Ohio Supreme Court JUSTICE will be served for the citizens of Portsmouth, Ohio.

Thanks for everyone’s support and encouragement.


CLICK: 11-19-08 Decision and Judgment Entry

posted by tkm 11-24-08

8-15-07 Judge Marshall ruled – Mollette case ruling upheld:

See details on following link:
CLICK: 8-15-07 Marting

posted by tkm 8-15-08

Below are the supplemental brief pdf files requested by the 4th District Court of Appeals after notice to parties the court may sua sponte reconsider its prior decision in Mollette v Portsmouth City Council (see information below 6-27-08).  

CLICK:  7-15-08 Defendants’ Supplemental Brief

CLICK:  7-11-08 Appellants’ Supplemental Brief

posted by tkm 7-22-08

6-27-08 The 4th District Court of Appeals of Ohio requested supplemental briefs. The parties were given notice that the court may sua sponte reconsider its prior decision in Mollette v Portsmouth City Council, where we held Portsmouth City Council did not waive the issue of its non sui juris status by failing to comply with Civ.R. 9(A).

CLICK: 7-2-08 Court of Appeals requests supplemental briefs concerning the previous decision.

posted by tkm 7-13-08

4-9-08 Reply Brief of the City

CLICK: 4-9-08 City Reply Brief

posted by tkm 7-13-08
3-26-08 Response Brief of Plaintiffs-Appellants

CLICK: 3-26-08 Plaintiffs-Appellants Response Brief

posted by tkm 7-13-08

3-25-08 Notice of oral argument will be held on June 26, 2008 at 930 am in Adams County in West Union.

CLICK: Notice of Oral Argument 6-26-08

posted by tkm 7-13-08
3-10-08 Plaintiffs/Appellants/Cross Appellees through their legal counsel hereby moves the Court for an extension of time pursuant to Rule 11 of the Local Rules of the Fourth Appellante Judicial District to file their response brief on March 26, 2008.

CLICK: 3-10-08 Request for Extension

posted by tkm 7-13-08

Linked below is the City’s request for oral argument in the 4th District Court of Appeals

CLICK: 02-20-08 Case 07CA3206 Defendant-Appellees Oral Arguments

Brief of Defendants-Appellees/Cross-Appellants, City of Portsmouth, Howard Baughman, M. Carol Caudill, Barbara Halcomb, James D. Kalb, Ann S. Sydnor, Raymond Pyle, Jerrold Albrecht, David Malone, Martin Mohr, Michael H. Mearan  

CLICK: 07CA3206 Defendant-Appellees Brief

Brief of Defendants-Appellees/Cross-Appellants, City of Portsmouth, Howard Baughman, M. Carol Caudill, Barbara Halcomb, James D. Kalb, Ann S. Sydnor, Raymond Pyle, Jerrold Albrecht, David Malone, Martin Mohr, Michael H. Mearan in Response to Brief of Plaintiffs-Appellants/Cross-Appellees 

CLICK: 07CA3206 Defendant-Appellees Brief In Response

Linked below is an Order from the Court allowing the City until February 22, 2008 to file their brief. 

CLICK: 2-13-08 Appelles-Cross-Appellants File for Extension

posted by tkm 2-29-08
Linked below is the Brief filed in the Appeal by the Mollette’s

CLICK: 2-6-07 Teresa Mollette et al. v. Portsmouth City Council

posted by tkm 2-7-08

CLICK: 12-27-07 City’s Cross Appeal to the Appeal

posted by tkm 1-17-08
Below is a link to the pdf file regarding the Notice of Appeal filed in the 4th District Court of Appeals by the Plantiffs/Appellants, RE: Teresa Mollette et al. v Portsmouth City Council, and mailed on 12-21-07; this action came after 5 City Council members voted on 12-10-07 to Appeal Judge Marshall’s ruling of 11-28-07.

CLICK:  12-21-07 Notice of Appeal – Ohio 4th District Court’s

posted by tkm 12-30-07

12-10-07 “Regular” City Council Meeting – Five (5) Council members voted to Appeal Judge Marshall’s ruling.  1st Ward Councilmember Mike Mearan led the discussion for appealing the decision.  During the discussion it was mentioned that members of council talked about this ordinance outside the meeting.  Also, Mearan stated Council needed Executive Sessions and the only way to get Executive Sessions back is to Appeal Judge Marshall’s Ruling.  This is not true.  They could put the issue on the ballot to see if the citizens of Portsmouth think Council deserves or could be trusted with Executive Sessions after the shafting they got with the Marting SHAM.

Listen to video clip from meeting below:

CLICK: 12-10-07 Discussion and Vote

posted by tkm 12-13-07

11-28-07 Attorney Fee ruling by Judge Marshall

CLICK:  11-28-07 Attorney Fee ruling

posted by tkm 12-8-07 
An Oral Hearing has been set in Judge Marshall’s Courtroom for October 3rd, 2007 @ 2:00pm.

This Oral Hearing is to hear arguments on both sides concerning attorney fees.

Please plan on attending!

posted by tkm 8-22-07

8-15-07 Judge Marshall’s ruling upheld his previous decision – City Council violated the “Sunshine Laws”, read decision below:

CLICK:  8-15-07 Teresa Mollette, et al vs Portsmouth City Council, et al 

Mollette case ruling upheld 
By FRANK LEWIS, PDT Staff Writer
Wednesday, August 15, 2007 10:06 PM EDT

Scioto County Common Pleas Judge William T. Marshall has reiterated his original ruling in the case of Teresa Mollette versus Portsmouth City Council. The case centers around the attempt by Teresa Mollette to recover legal fees from her attempt to prove the city broke Ohio Sunshine Laws by allowing meetings involving a limited number of council members at a time.

The first issue of the case to be considered was an assertion by the city that the statute of limitations had run out on the plaintiff’s proposed amended complaint of July 26, 2005.

In his ruling, Marshall said, in part, “The court finds that the proposed amended complaint arose from the exact same events which are the basis of the original complaint. The parties brought in by the amendments within the period provided by law for commencing the action received such notice of the institution of the action, and that they were not prejudiced in maintaining a defense …”

In short, Marshall, who received the case back from the Fourth District Court of Appeals to change wording, ruled that the statute of limitations had not run out.

The second issue to be addressed by the ruling was one of finding whether or not City Council violated the Sunshine Law. Marshall ruled they had, based on what he said in his ruling is included in Section 4 of the charter of the City of Portsmouth. 

“All meetings of the Council and of the committees thereof shall be open to the public, and the rules of the council shall provide that citizens of the city shall have a reasonable opportunity to be heard at any such meeting in regard to any matter considered thereat.”

However, Portsmouth Mayor Jim Kalb said the section quoted in the ruling was incomplete. He produced a copy of Section 4, which reads, “All meetings of the Council and of committees thereof shall be open to the public, subject to the provisions of the open meeting law of the Ohio Revised Code, presently contained in Section 121.22 therein, and the rules of the Council shall provide that citizens of the City shall have a reasonable opportunity to be heard at any such meeting in regard to any matter considered thereat.”

Kalb said the section he says was omitted from the ruling was put in place in 1989 for the express purpose of providing for executive sessions.

“City Council has no need for executive sessions,” Mollette said. “Council does not handle personnel issues. That’s the mayor’s job. The department heads deal with the discipline of employees and the mayor deals with the discipline of the department heads. In fact, the charter is worded in such a way that Council will not be involved in hiring, firing or even making recommendations when it comes to personnel.” 

Mollette, who is the wife of Portsmouth city councilman Bob Mollette, said it was City Council acting in executive session that produced the Marting’s building issue.

“We were able to get the $2 million back from the Marting’s Foundation, but by the mayor entering into another agreement with the foundation, we will lose that money,” Mollette said.

Kalb said when he entered into the agreement Mollette referred to, he had been ordered to do so by City Council.

“Council authorized and ordered me to enter into an agreement to return that money to us when we have done something with the (Marting’s) building,” Kalb said. “Now we are not going to get that because we’re not going to do anything with that building. With the $200,000 we did receive from the (Marting’s) foundation, we would have received around $1.8 million.”

In another part of Marshall’s ruling, he said according to the Ohio Revised Code, if Council is found to have violated Ohio Sunshine Laws, it is mandated that he must award the plaintiffs reasonable legal fees, all court costs and a civil forfeiture of $500 to be paid to the plaintiffs.

Marshall said he will hold a hearing and determine what he decides the reasonable attorney fees will be.

In his ruling, Marshall referred to Section 4 of the City Charter as being “ambiguous,” in that it requires, “all meetings shall be open to the public.”

Marshall said that on several occasions when he has ruled in the Mollette case, people have questioned why he did not rule on the Marting’s issue.

“The Marting’s Foundation has absolutely nothing to do with this case. The Marting’s issue is not in any way a part of this case, so I can’t rule on that,” Marshall said.

Mollette said she is pleased Marshall upheld his original ruling.

“What it (the ruling) means to me mostly is that they (City Council) can’t go behind closed doors without getting the citizens involved,” Mollette said. “The public does need to be involved.”

Mollette said in order for Council to be able to have executive sessions it would have to go before voters.

“And if that ever comes up, I would hope the citizens of Portsmouth would never give Council executive sessions.”

FRANK LEWIS can be reached at (740) 353-3101, ext. 232.

The reason Bob and I filled an injunction against Portsmouth City Council was to return illegally collected taxpayers monies to the rightful owners, the taxpayers, that had been dispersed to the Marting Foundation to bail them out of a deal gone bad. We also filed the injunction to prove that Portsmouth City Council misused and violated the laws provided through the Portsmouth City Charter and in accordance with their Codified Ordinances, and the Ohio “Sunshine Laws”.

The illegally collected monies mentioned above were collected for several years and had made it possible for City Council to purchase the Marting Building for an inflated cost of $2 million dollars, which the deal was sealed behind closed doors. This transaction was commandeered and consummated by a Mayor (who was ultimately recalled), six council members (2 who were also ultimately recalled) and an unscrupulous attorney, C. Clayton Johnson, Marting Foundation.

Judge Marshall’s initial ruling made it possible for the taxpayers of Portsmouth, Ohio to have returned to them their mismanaged and illegally collected monies, and to have brought to the voters a choice to permit City Council to meet in Executive Session. Solicitor David Kuhn advised Council to vote to appeal Judge Marshall’s decision and advised Mayor Kalb, in form only, to sign a second agreement with the Marting Foundation.

The advice to the Mayor and the City Council by Solicitor David Kuhn gave the monies Bob and I had returned to the city taxpayers back to the Marting Foundation. Solicitor David Kuhn’s advice to Mayor Kalb to sign a second agreement with the Marting Foundation, who in my opinion are nothing but crooks, gave away the taxpayers $2 million dollars – again. Also, Solicitor David Kuhn’s advice to City Council to appeal Judge Marshall’s ruling is, in my opinion, a continued attempt to take the voice away from the citizens of Portsmouth, Ohio, and to control the taxpayers of Portsmouth.

Why would City Council vote to the affirmative, by appealing Judge Marshall’s ruling, to give back $2 million dollars to a, in my opinion corrupt foundation; to try and keep the public in the dark on matters of public business and interest; and to take away the voice of the citizens of Portsmouth?

In my opinion:

1) We have a City Solicitor, David Kuhn, who is on the take, and I say that because I would hope with all his schooling, which also includes a Chemical Engineering Degree, he would be smart enough to work his way out of a brown paper sack.

2) We have a Mayor, Jim Kalb, that is uneducated and inexperienced in running a city, which is exactly why he was put in this position by the unelected officials of Portsmouth, and not smart enough to figure it out. Jim’s problem is his attitude and my feelings laziness. If Jim had wanted to make positive change in Portsmouth he has had many opportunities, but has failed miserable; so I relate that back to his poor attitude and lack of experience and education.

3) I also believe we have a couple City Council members who are also on the take and three City Council members, who like the Mayor, are not experienced or educated enough to figure out they were placed in that position to be used by the unelected officials of Portsmouth, Ohio.

posted by tkm 8-20-07
5-17-07 Defendants’ Reply Momorandum in Support of Denfendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment and in Opposition to Plantiffs’ Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment

CLICK: 5-17-07 Documentation filed in Common Pleas Court – pdf

5-3-07 Plaintiffs’ Memorandum Contra Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment and Plaintiffs’ Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment

CLICK:  5-3-07 Documentation filed in Common Pleas Court – pdf  

3-21-07 A pdf copy of the document from the Court’s giving the Judicial Determination date and setting deadlines for filing Memorandum Contra’s.

CLICK: 3-21-07 Entry from the Court

3-12-07 Documents submitted by the Defendants’ to the Common Pleas Courts 

CLICK: 3-12-07 Portsmouth Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment

CLICK: 3-12-07 Affidavit of Joann Aeh

3-2-07 Plaintiffs Answer to Counterclaim of Defendants and filed in Common Pleas Court.

CLICK: 3-2-07 Plaintiffs filed Answer & Counterclaim

2-12-07 Portsmouth Defendants Amended Answer To Plantiffs Amended Complaint and Counterclaim 

CLICK:  2-12-07 Amended Answer 

1-18-07 Answer of Defendants to Plantiffs Amended Complaint

CLICK:  1-18-07 Answer of Defendants to Plaintiffs’ Amended Compaint

1-12-07 In the Court of Common Pleas of Scioto County, Ohio an Amended Complaint was filed for Declaratory Judgment and Injunctive Relief as it pertains to City Council’s violation of the “Sunshine Laws”.

CLICK:  1-12-07 Amended Complaint document


On November 27, 2006, the 4th District Court of Appeal overturned Judge Marshall’s ruling.  The conclusion by the Appeal’s Court questioned whether City Council, as a body, can be sued, not if they violated the “Sunshine Laws” and the City Charter.  In my opinion, to alleviate confusion of the decision they remanded the case back to the Portsmouth, Ohio, Scioto County, Common Pleas Court’s for amend by the Mollette’s.

As you read the ruling you will see that no decision was made on the “Sunshine Laws” violation or the attorney fees.  Read the Case for yourself:

CLICK: 11-27-06 Decision and Judgment Entry – 4th District Court of Appeals.

PDT Staff Writer
Thursday, November 30, 2006 9:14 AM EST

Appeals court sends case back
Ruling: City does not have to reimburse Mollettes’ legal fees

Bob and Teresa Mollette said the city violated Ohio Sunshine Laws when talking to Richard D. Marting Foundation members about the sale.

Calling it a victory for the city, Solicitor David Kuhn said a 4th District Appeals Court verdict this week means the city does not have to reimburse Bob and Teresa Mollette for legal fees in their suit against Portsmouth City Council regarding the 2002 purchase of the former Marting’s Department Store building.

The legal fees are about $21,000.

Kuhn and Teresa Mollette both said the ruling means the city can once again meet in executive session.

In making its ruling, the appeals court said City Council cannot be sued. Instead, only its individual members and the city can be sued.

The court sent the matter back to the Scioto County Common Pleas Court where the Mollettes originally filed suit against City Council on May 28, 2004.

The Mollettes said the council violated Ohio Sunshine Laws when talking to Richard D. Marting Foundation members about the sale.

The foundation members are Clayton Johnson, Randy Arnett, Julia Wisniewski, Gerald Jenkins and Roy Payne.

“By there being a reversal of the judgment, I would consider that a victory, even though it’s not a complete victory,” Kuhn said on Wednesday.

In 2004, Judge William Marshall said City Council violated Ohio Sunshine Laws by meeting in two groups of three with foundation members.

He voided the sale, awarded the city a $2 million lien on the property and forbade City Council from meeting in executive sessions.

The foundation then offered to return $1.4 million of the purchase money and give the city the building.

Teresa Mollette said she and her husband will amend the suit towards the city and possibly the City Council members who voted to buy the former Marting’s building.

The members were Jim Kalb, now the city’s mayor, current City Council president Howard Baughman, Ann Sydnor, Carol Caudill, Ray Pyles and Barbara Halcomb.

Bob Mollette replaced Caudill, who along with Sydnor and former mayor Greg Bauer, were recalled over the Marting’s issue.

“It looks like the 4th District Court can’t decide whether City Council is suable or not,” Teresa Mollette said. “So we will amend it and we will take it back. I don’t look at it as a loss. It’s just a bump in the road.”

She said Marshall said it was not necessary to name the individual members when filing the original suit.

Kuhn said the appeals court ruling will not affect the city’s ownership of the building.

However, foundation attorney Stan Bender previously said the foundation will not give the city the money without a plan for the property.

“I have no confidence in city government that it would be spent in any kind of appropriate fashion,” he said. “It is important to the foundation that the building be used for public use.”

Kalb signed an agreement with the foundation to forfeit the money if a plan for the building property is not in place by March 2008.

JEFF BARRON can be reached at (740) 353-3101, ext. 236.

The 4th District Court of Appeals, from their ruling, is sending the case back to the local courts for amending. If we decide to amend the complaint I see no reason for any of the previous decisions made by Judge Marshall to change.

Barron mentioned, in today’s PDT article, that I agree the City can now resume Executive Sessions. Not entirely accurate. Yes, the decision made by the 4th District Court of Appeals overturned the injunctive relief decision ordered by Judge Marshall, but our Complaint, Injunction, will be either refilled through the local courts, which I see no reason why his previous decision would change, or we could Appeal to the Supreme Court that Council is sui juris, by definition of the “Sunshine Laws” and the City Charter. Either way Council could still be in violation of the “Sunshine Laws” and the City Charter if they continue with Executive Sessions.

If Council would decide to resume Executive Session and legislation is passed that was discussed during the Executive Session meeting, Council could again put them selves in the middle of a court action suit. My feelings are, any legislation passed could and would be overturned. If Council would decide to resume Executive Sessions this, in my opinion, is irresponsible by Council and irresponsible by the direction of the City Solicitor. Council needs to change the Charter. They need to present to the voters of Portsmouth a Charter Amendment asking permission to go into Executive Session, and in my opinion I do not feel Council deserves or can be trusted in having Executive Sessions.

I still stand that Council violated the “Sunshine Laws” and the City Charter when they went into Executive Session; the 4th District Court of Appeals did not rule on the “Sunshine Laws” violation. To continue past practice of Executive Sessions would only put the city, once again, into a liable situation.

I feel the issues are far from over. In my opinion, Council, by the definition of the “Sunshine Laws” and the City Charter, are sui juris.

posted by tkm 11-30-06

8-3-06 Marting Hearing with the 4th District Court of Appeal (Video’s may take a few minutes to load)

CLICK:  The City still believes it’s acceptable to hide information from the public.

CLICK:  The City believes it’s acceptable to deliberate behind closed doors.

CLICK:  Joe Griffith arguments

7-10-06 Regular Council Meeting

CLICK: Baughman appoints committee

6-5-06 Linked is the Notice from the Fourth District Court of Appeals scheduling the Marting case for oral argument on Thursday, August 3, 2006 at 9:30 a.m.

CLICK: Scioto Co. App No. 05CA3051

3-07-06 Matthew W. McFarland, Judge, Fourth District Court of Appeals voluntarily recused himself from any consideration on the merits herin.

CLICK: Matthew W. McFarland, Judge

12-22-05 Mollette’s Notice to the 4th District Court of Cross-Appeals

CLICK: Fourth District Court of Appeals

12-22-05 Council’s Appeal of Judge Marshall’s ruling

CLICK: Fourth District Court of Appeals

12-12-05 Ordinance passed to Appeal Judge Marshall’s ruling

CLICK: Council Ordinance 

12-2-05 Attorney Fee judgement

CLICK: Court of Common Pleas of Scioto County, Ohio 

9-15-05 Injunctive Relief granted by Judge Marshall

CLICK: Court of Common Pleas of Scioto County, Ohio

9-15-05 Motion to amend by Plaintiffs–“The Court, after giving this matter consideration, believes that the addition of the City of Portsmouth, Ohio as a party Defendant is unnecessary…”

CLICK: Court of Common Pleas of Scioto County, Ohio

9-07-05 The below interview was held in Jim Kalb’s office concerning the signing of the Marting Contract.

CLICK: Interview with Jim Kalb by Dr. Andrew Feight, Editor FreePress

CLICK: Partial Transcript of Interview with Jim Kalb, transcribed by Dr. Andrew Feight

8-31-05 The taped video of Judge Marshall’s hearing documenting violations of the law by City Council members. Also, this video makes obvious his dissatisfaction towards the City Solicitor David Kuhn for his disregard of his ruling in November 23rd 04.

CLICK: Marshall Video–Court of Common Pleas of Scioto County, Ohio

6-2-05 The Quit Claim Deed was signed by parties on 5-31-05, but was not recorded in the Scioto County Recorders office until 6-2-05. new 2-11-08

CLICK:  6-2-05 Quit Claim Deed

5-24-05 Kalb’s grant agreement with the Marting Foundation “the city hereby releases and discharges the Foundation and Marting Brothers from any and all claims or causes of action, from the beginning of the world to the date of this Agreement”

In the event each and every condition to disbursement of the Foundation Assets set forth in this Paragraph of this Agreement has not been fully satisfied within thirty-six (36) calendar months next following recordation of the Quitclaim…the undertaking of the Foundation to grant to Foundation Assets shall terminate, and the City shall forfeit any and all rights to grants from the Foundation…”

CLICK: Marting Foundation Grant Agreement and Release

3-8-05 Letter read by D. Joe Griffith at the Marting Forum at Portsmouth High School and signed by Kalb, Baughman & Horner

CLICK: Read Letter

2-28-05 The Richard D. Marting Foundation, Inc.’s offer

CLICK: Read offer

2-14-05 “Regular” City Council Meeting Minutes


1-14-05 “We believe our efforts in the narrow areas we were asked to explore…”

CLICK: Response from Betty Montgomery’s Office

12-13-04 Regular Council Meeting 

CLICK: 12-13-04 Stan Bender talking to Council–“Meeting Minutes”

CLICK: 12-13-04 Audio

CLICK: 12-13-04 Complete Meeting Minutes

12-10-04  Linked below is a copy of a letter written by David Kuhn to four Council members, Bob was not sworn in office at the time or prior to the hearing.

Per a conversation with our attorney D. Joe Griffith, Judge Marshall had received a copy of this letter prior to our hearing of 12-13-04.  The pdf copy of this letter will provide the evidence on why Judge Marshall felt he should ensure Council, by the actions of the City Solicitor, should be enjoined in the injunction and the injunction awarded.

This kind of behavior from the Solicitor shows direct disregard for the ruling of a Judge; I guess it’s true what they say—David Kuhn thinks he is the law.

CLICK: 12-10-04 Letter written by D. Kuhn to 4 Council members.

11-23-04 “Based upon the foregoing, the Court finds that there remains no genuine issues as to any material facts and that Plaintiffs are entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Defendants have violated the City charter and the “Sunshine Law” and ordinance 63-02 is therefore invalid. This Court rules and states that the contract between the City of Portsmouth and Marting’s Foundation is invalid because the resolution, rule, or formal action adopted in the open meeting was the result of deliberations not open to the public.”

“It is THEREFORE ORDERED that the deed recorded in the Scioto County Record of Deeds recorded in Volume 971 at Page 448 be set aside and held for naught and that the City of Portsmouth shall retain an equitable charge and a valid encumbrance and lien in the said property for the purchase price thereof in the sum of $2,000,000.”

CLICK: Court of Common Pleas of Scioto County, Ohio


CLICK: 9-23-2004 @ 10:10 a.m.Howard Baughman, III

CLICK: 9-23-2004 @ 11:00 a.m. Maddeline Carol Caudill

CLICK: 9-23-2004 @ 11:45 a.m. James D. Kalb, Sr.

CLICK: 9-23-2004 @ 12:15 a.m. Ann S. Sydnor

CLICK: 9-23-2004 @ 12:50 a.m. Barbara E. Halcomb

Ray Pyles was not available for Deposition.

9-30-04 Complete Transcript of Hearing

CLICK: Direct Examination w/Joann Aeh

6-14-04 Jim Kalb was asked if the City had insurance that would cover the losses caused by inappropriate acts by Council in their performance outside the laws????
Jim stated–“NO,” there is no insurance available for this claim; Jim was asked this question after the date, which is found on the attached document.

CLICK: Professional Liability-Wrongful Act

6-10-04 Financial records during the progress of the investigation of the Marting purchase.

CLICK: Betty Montgomery review of City of Portsmouth purchase of Marting Department Store Building


CLICK: 5-26-04 C. Clayton Johnson

CLICK: 6-7-04 Greg Bauer

CLICK: 6-15-04 John Kizer

CLICK: 6-15-04 Ken Rase

CLICK: 6-15-04 Jim Kalb

CLICK: 6-16-04 Michael A. Finn, PFB Architects

CLICK: 6-22-04 Carol Caudill

CLICK: 6-22-04 Howard Baughman

CLICK: 6-22-04 Larry Leiter

CLICK: 6-24-04 Ann Sydnor

CLICK: 6-24-04 Barbara Halcomb

CLICK: 6-25-04 Chief Horner, Portsmouth PD

CLICK: 8-4-2004 Letter to Lynn Alan Grimshaw Scioto County Prosecutor BCI&I Case No. FI-73-04-06-0626–Investigation Request Scenario

CLICK: 4-26-04 Lynn Alan Grimshaw request for investigation

6-11-04 PDT Article written on Rase Fire

CLICK: Ken Rase Fire

6-5-04 Scioto County Common Pleas Court Search Warrant Ken Rase Reality

CLICK: 505 Court Street; Portsmouth, Ohio

5-25-2004 letter was written in hopes of alleviating any further unfairness inflicted on the citizens of Portsmouth by City Council members and Public Officials. Mr. Kuhn chose not to acknowledge the correspondence, which then prompted Bob and me to file the Injunction on May 28, 2004.

CLICK: Letter written to David Kuhn, Solicitor

4-12-04 Listing of Property Relating to the Marting Purchase

CLICK: Mayor Memo

10-30-03 Phase II Renovation Contract

CLICK: Phase II Renovation Contract Mayor Memo

6-2-03 New Municipal Building Construction Cost and Financing Plan

CLICK: Bauer Letter to Council

3-10-03 City of Portsmouth vs. Scioto County Budget Commission, Scioto County Auditor, Scioto County Treasurer, and Scioto County Prosecuting Attorney

CLICK: Ohio Board of Tax Appeals


CLICK: Richard D. Marting Foundation, Inc. Minutes

10-9-02 Application for Tax Exemption

CLICK: C.Clayton Johnson, Esq.

9-9-02 Internal Revenue Service

CLICK: Case No: 302158053

8-15-02 William K. Shaw, Jr. Document Request

CLICK: Document Request

7-31-02 Request for Public Records

CLICK: Request for public Records

7-22-02 Opinion requested on Referendum as to Ordinance No. 02-63

CLICK: Referendum Request to Ordinance No. 02-63

7-17-02 Legal Opinion Request – Referendum Attempt

CLICK: From Mayor Greg Bauer

6-4-02 Itemized document of transactions during the Marting purchase.

CLICK: Buyer’s Closing Statement

6-4-02 This check was written by the City to Lawyers Title Agency of Portsmouth, Inc., Agent: C. Clayton Johnson, for the purchase of the Marting property.

CLICK: $1,984.882.54

6-3-02 “City Hall Building Acquisition Bond Anticipation Note”
JoAnn Aeh signed a Certificate in Compliance with Section 121.22 of the Ohio Revised Code pertaining to the authorization, issuance and sale of $2,000,000-3.20% City Hall Building Acquisition Bond Anticipation Notes dated June 3, 2002. Did Ms. Aeh deliberatly falsify documents for Council? No public hearing was every announced or held for the disucussion of payment for the Marting property.

CLICK: City Hall Building Acquisition Bond Anticipation Note


CLICK: Richard D. Marting Foundation, Inc. Minutes

5-29-02 The Marting Brothers Company and the City of Portsmouth

CLICK: Marting Real Estate Purchase Agreement

5-24-02 2M Note for Marting’s Purchase

CLICK: M. Trent Williams Memo, Auditor

5-21-02 3rd Draft of Marting’s Purchase Agreement

CLICK:  5-21-02 3rd Draft of the Marting’s Purchase Agreement addressed to Mayor Bauer and Solicitor Kuhn.

5-20-02 Conners & Co., Inc., Investment Securities

CLICK: Plan of Financing–New City Building

5-20-02 Architectural Report–Marting’s Department Store

CLICK: PFB Site Survey and Feasibility Study

5-13-02 Council Letter No. 52–This is the only information available for the Conference Meeting held on 5-13-02. No meeting minutes are available and tape has been destroyed. Public was excluded from the decision making process.

CLICK: Council Letter No. 52

5-13-02 PFB Executive Summary conducted on 4-10-02

CLICK: PFB Marting Feasibility Study

4-19-02 Lawyers Title Insurance Corporation

CLICK: Shedule A

4-5-02 Downtown Municipal Building Proposal

CLICK: Mayor Memo

4-2002 Draft Press Release


3-26-02 Ken Rase Appraisal

CLICK: Ken Rase Appraisal

3-12-02 Date of Inspection and Property Appraised

CLICK: Rittenhouse Appraisal of 515 Chillicothe Street

2002 City Block Map

CLICK: Map of Chillicothe to Washington Street

6-18-01, 8-20-01, 8-31-01, 4-17-02 “A less costly idea (for the Marting Foundation) could be that the city works out a deal with Marting’s to purchase their building (at an extravagant and inflated cost) and they move into a new store in the Solve Project (Hatcherville).”

CLICK: Memos From the Mayor’s Office

CLICK: 11-2-99 Railway Buiding Evaluation, Dodson-Stilson, Inc.-Michael W. Clippinger, Facilities Division Manger

CLICK: 7-27-99 Memo Portsmouth Municipal Complex, Gilbane (Columbus, Ohio)

CLICK: 3-4-99 City Lunch/Shopping Downtown Survey

6-19-96 Letter to Shareholders from Richard D. Marting
CLICK: The Marting Brothers Company

CLICK: 1923 Neodoefer Silcox-v-Marting Brothers

No Comments

No comments yet.

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.