1851 Center for Constitutional Law

“The independent tax accountant prepared these forms and returned them to the director for review. The director then provided the 990 to the board.”

“Any board member with a potential conflict of interest discloses that interest and is then recused from any vote related to the matter.”

“Compensation for the executive director is set by the board of directors (absent the executive director), who, as law professors, chairman of other public interest law firms and non-profit entities, and proprietors of private law firms, have extensive familiarity with the market rates of compensation for attorneys, public interest attorneys, and non-profit managers. By such metric, the current compensation of the executive director is below market.”

“The governing documents are made available upon request.”

“1. Cf homes v. City of north canton, ohio. The 1851 center initiated this case to protect the property rights and privacy rights of ohio tenants and landlords who are threatened with governmental searches of their private homes without probable cause through ohio cities' employment of "administrative warrant applications," which the city of north canton claims do not require a demonstration of probable cause prior to issuance of a search warrant. The homeowners and tenants seek a holding that, pursuant to the ohio constitution, cities must prove some evidence of a need to search a property before a search warrant to inspect the entirety of that property may be granted. This case is on appeal at the ohio supreme court. 2. Havel v. City of kent, ohio. In this case, the 1851 center seeks to protect the property, contractual, and privacy rights of ohio homeowners, tenants, landlords, and other unrelated individuals seeking to dwell together within the same home. The homeowner argues that the ohio constitution is more protective of homeowners' property rights than the federal constitutional baseline, such that the city of kent's occupancy restriction forbidding more than two unrelated individuals from dwelling together within his six-bedroom home is unconstitutional as applied to such properties. This case seeks to build on the 1851 center's 2019 victory in federal court on the same subject in yoder v. City of bowling green, ohio. 3. City of painesville, ohio v. Cattell. In this case, 1851 center represents a group of homeowners who own homes adjacent to the city's sidewalks facing criminal charges for not repairing or updating the city of painesville's public sidewalks. Seeking to protect the homeowners' property rights, liberty, and freedom from unlawful taxation and assessments, the 1851 center moved to dismiss all criminal charges against the homeowners. That motion was successful. 4. Menkhaus v. City of milford, ohio. The 1851 center initiated this case in 2022 to protect the property rights of owners of short-term-rental properties within the city of milford, which has sought to ban all short-term rentals when either (1) arbitrarily vetoed by a nearby neighbor; or (2) the rental is not occupied by the owner as his or her primary residence. This case remains pending in the federal district court for the southern district of ohio. 5. Crossroads v. City of cleveland heights, ohio. The 1851 center initiated this case in 2023 to guarantee the equal protection of homeowners who lease homes within the city of cleveland heights, ohio but do not reside within that city or the county within which it is located. Such "outsiders" are forced to pay twice the rental registration/licensing fees of similarly-situated homeowners who reside within the city. This case remains pending in the federal district court for the northern district of ohio, with the court having certified a class of nonresident homeowners subjected to the penalty. 6. The 1851 center educated the ohio general assembly on the importance of property tax reform to ohioans. 7. The 1851 center's director discussed constitutional rights at a myriad of live events, and through a myriad of media outlets, including television, radio, and print.”