IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEASOF LUCAS COUNTY, OHIO

MEGHAN GALLAGHERChairman, Lucas County Republican Party Central Committee10.S. Superior Toledo, OH 43604

Case No. _____

Plaintiffv. MOTION FOR TEMPORARY

RESTRAINING ORDER ANDLUCAS COUNTY BOARD OF ELECTIONS

PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION WITH MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT

One Government Center, Suite 300 Toledo, OH 43604

and

OHIO REPUBLICAN PARTY STATE CENTRAL COMMITTEE211 South Fifth StreetColumbus, OH 43215

Defendants

Anthony J. DeGidio (0069064)712 Farrer St.Maumee, OH 43537Tel : (419) 509-1878Fax: 419-740-2556Email: tony@cyberlawyer.comCOUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF

and

Scott A. Ciolek PE (0082779)Ciolek LTD520 Madison Ave. Suite 820Toledo, Ohio 43604Tel: (419) 740-5935Fax: (866) 890-0419Email: scott@cw.law.proCO-COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF

*******************************************************************

Now comes Plaintiff by and through counsel and move this court for a Temporary

Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction pursuant to Civ R 65(A), (B) , R.C. § 2727.02, and

Ohio Common Law, for the reasons set forth in the memorandum below.

MEMORANDUM

I. STATEMENT OF FACTS

The facts in this case are set forth in detail in the Complaint and the declaration of

Meghan Gallagher, which are attached thereto and incorporated by reference.

The dispute in this case began in 2008 when Jon Stainbrook and Meghan Gallagher

assisted the LCRP in recruiting central committee members for the March 4, 2008 primary

election. During the months leading up to and after the March 4, 2008 election, Plaintiff

Gallagher, Stainbrook, and the “new LCRP recruits” alleged Defendant BOE used their office as

a weapon against them so their candidates remained in control of the LCRP. Since being elected

Chairman of the LCRP, Stainbrook has made clear to BOE members Olman and Kriner that they

would be replaced because they unlawfully used their positions to campaign against the “new

LCRP recruits.” Lynn Olman and Patrick Kriner then began to organize others to help them

retain their positions at the BOE and now are using their positions at the BOE for their own

personal vendetta.

More recently, the Stainbrook-lead LCRP discovered documents which confirmed their

suspicions that Patrick Kriner became a member on the BOE through a meeting which violated

the Ohio Open Meetings Act. Hans Schnapp a member of the central committee brought a suit

against the LCRP to obtain a declaration that Kriner unlawfully took office (Case No. Case No.

CI-200906190 Lucas County Common Pleas Court). Judge Franks denied Schnapp's request for

a TRO and set the matter for preliminary injunction hearing to be consolidated with the trial on

May 10, 2010. Kriner knows his days are numbered and thinks he can short circuit the attempts

to remove him if he can conspire with others to, wrest control of the party from the majority of

members who now support Stainbrook.

Plaintiff Meghan Gallagher is the chairman of the Lucas County Republican Party

("LCRP") Central Committee ("LCRPCC") and a member of the LCRP Executive Committee

("LCRPEC") and has held these positions since the organizational meeting of the party held on

June 14, 2008. See Complaint Exhibits B and C. No one can seriously dispute that she has acted

in this capacity since that time. Recently, minority factions of the LCRPCC and the LCRPEC

have attempted to replace Plaintiff and other members of the Executive and Central Committees.

(See Blade story attached as Ex. A) This group appears to be headed by Jeff Simpson and Paul

Hoag but it is clear that others have conspired with them including Lynn Olman and Pat Kriner,

both members of the BOE.

The dispute began at the meeting referenced in the Blade Story (Ex. A). The Simpson-

Hoag faction claims they somehow got themselves voted to replace Gallagher, the chairman of

the LCRPCC and Jon Stainbrook the chairman of the LCRPEC as well as numerous other central

committee and executive committee members. To Plaintiff's knowledge there is no lawful way

this could have happened since according to the bylaws she is to preside over all meeting of the

central committee, no notice was ever provided to the committee regarding a vote to remove

elected officers, and there was never a meeting which she called to order and ended where any

such actions were taken. Plaintiff concedes she does not know how the Simpson-Hoag faction

specifically claims that they came to power but there is no decree from any lawful body giving

them any authority to act on behalf of the LCRP. Instead of coming forward with evidence or

rationale, the group simply repeatedly states on the internet and to any press that will listen, that

they represent the LCRP.

The Hoag-Simpson group has recently gone so far as to submit fraudulent documents to

the BOE in an attempt to bypass the correct lawful process of resolving their dispute by a court

of law. Instead they have attempted to have the matter decided by the Republican State Central

Committee relying on an incorrect interpretation of Ohio law. The BOE has two members who

have a clear conflict of interest and behaves as if this rogue faction has some legitimate claim to

authority. The Hoag-Simpson group filed lists of its supposed Central Committee members and

officers and EC members and officers with the BOE on December 23, 2008. (attached to

Complaint as Ex. H and I. Within hours1 the BOE issued a notice that it would have a meeting to

consider these documents. (See Ex. J attached to complaint). The attorney for the LCRP

objected to any consideration of the filings by the BOE (see letter attached to complaint as Ex.

K) and within hours of the receipt of this letter the BOE canceled its meeting ( attached to

complaint as Ex. L). As indicated by the LCRP attorney the documents filed by the Simpson-

Hoag people had so many errors on their face that it was clear they did not represent a lawful

central committee or executive committee2. Days later the Lucas County prosecutor's office

issued a letter agreeing with the LCRP that any documents would not be considered valid

because they were not signed by a secretary. The prosecutor did not address all of the other

problems with the Simpson-Hoag filings or in regards to the legitimacy of the December 21,

2009 LCRP meeting.

Around that time, the LCRP brought suit against Simpson and Hoag in Northern District

of Ohio Federal Court Case No.3:10-cv-00028-JZ. This action set forth 10 claims for relief

including violations of the Federal Lanham Act, Ohio trademark law and declaratory relief.

1The BOE has been unable to produce documents requested by Kelly Bensman for over a year now but when asked to become involved with a faction that wishes to have her removed from the LCRPCC they can act within hours and claim its an emergency. The bias of Olman and Kriner is obvious.2By statute and bylaws the LCRPCC is formed first and then it forms the LCRPEC.

Judge Zouhary ruled that there was no irreparable harm to the party and did not rule on the

legitimacy of either group.

The Simpson-Hoag group has persisted in their pattern of unlawful conduct without

seeking a lawful resolution to its dispute and since the first lists it filed with the BOE have been

declared invalid, it filed another set of lists on January 11, 2010. The BOE immediately

amended its agenda for its meeting today to include consideration of the unlawful documents

which still do not form a lawful central committee or executive committee. (Exhibit P attached to

Complaint).

The BOE will again attempt to exert authority where it has none by certifying the two

sets of lists of committee members to the state central committee pursuant to its authority under

R.C. 3517.04, 05, and .06. Plaintiff asks this court to declare the invalidity of the Hoag-Simpson

lists currently under review by the BOE and order the BOE to refrain from interfering with intra-

party disputes thus forcing any would be office holders to use the proper legal remedy.

Defendant Lucas County Board of Elections ("BOE") has no authority to involve itself in

intra-party disputes which concern the legitimacy as to members of county central and executive

committees. The only statute which allows its involvement is spelled out by statute 3517.05 in

Title 35 of the Ohio Revised Code.

Plaintiff herein asserts that Defendant BOE’s certification of any documents filed with

them by the Simpson-Hoag faction violates R.C. 3517.04, 05, and .06 and seeks declaratory and

injunctive relief to prevent Defendant BOE from certifying any lists filed by the Simpson Hoag

faction. Plaintiff herein asserts that Defendant ORPSCC’s determination of the rightful

organized committee resulting from Defendant’s unlawful certification of two lists purporting to

be “organized groups” violates R.C. 3517.04, .05, and .06 and seeks declaratory and injunctive

relief to prevent Defendant BOE from certifying any lists filed by the Simpson-Hoag faction.

II. ARGUMENT OF LAW

1. Meghan Gallagher is the de jure and de facto chairman of the Lucas County Republican Party Central Committee until any rogue faction proves otherwise in a court of law.

Meghan Gallagher is the de jure chairman of the Lucas County Republican Party

Central Committee. She is the de jure Chairman because she was elected under the Laws of the

State of Ohio and the bylaws of the LCRP. Paul Hoag is not the de jure Chairman because he

was never elected as such nor was he ever appointed. If the Defendants contend that Meghan is

not the de jure Chairman she is clearly the de facto Chairman. As such, Paul Hoag is clearly not

a de facto Chairman. The rights of a de facto officer to protect her incumbency in an office are

obviously not so broad as those of a de jure officer; for example, a de facto officer does not

possess the same rights as an officer de jure to maintain mandamus to compel delivery over of

the property, insignia, and paraphernalia of the office. Ohio Jur. 3d, Mandamus, Procedendo, and

Prohibition § 80 However, an injunction may properly be sought by one in possession of an

office to prevent interference by an adverse claimant, State ex rel. Garrison v. Brough, 94 Ohio

St. 115, 113 N.E. 683 (1916) and such an injunctive action may thus be brought by de facto

officers. Ohio Jur. 3d, Injunctions § 73.

The Ohio Supreme Court in State, ex rel. Witten, v. Ferguson (1947), 148 Ohio St. 702,

36 O.O. 285, 76 N.E.2d 886 defined what criteria must be met in order for an official to be

considered “de facto.” Witten dealt with de facto public officers. The Witten Court recognized

that while a village solicitor may not be deemed to be a public officer, as he acts at the direction

of and under the supervision of village council and does not initiate sovereign actions on his

own, nonetheless, Witten is persuasively authoritative and it illuminates the issue of the quality

of being a “de facto” public officer.

The Witten court found that one is a de facto official if she has the reputation of being the

official she purports to be and is accepted as such by those who deal with her. She is a de facto

official if her duties are exercised without appointment, but in such a manner that the public is

induced to suppose her to be who she purports to be, or if she is under color of appointment but

has omitted to conform to a precedent such as giving a bond or oath, or if she is under color of

appointment but it is void for his ineligibility or defect. The Witten court determined that one's

reputation may be based upon mere performance of official duties for a sufficient length of time

so as to imply an appointment. Id. at 709, 36 O.O. at 288-289, 76 N.E.2d at 890-891 The court

further noted that a de facto official shall have been in actual possession of the office in addition

to having the reputation for being who she purports to be.

Under the Ohio definition given in Witten as to what constitutes a de facto official, this

court must say that Paul Hoag is not the de facto Chairman of the LCRP. Hoag cannot be said to

have the reputation for being the Chairman nor has he been accepted as such by those dealing

with him. Essentially, his non-acceptance is the “raison d'etre” of this lawsuit. Further, any

reputation Hoag may have as being Chairman cannot be said to be based upon an “implied

appointment” by his discharge of duties for a “sufficient” length of time, insofar as his service to

date comprises a mere two weeks. Additionally, it cannot be said that Hoag has engaged in any

faithful discharge of duties in the Chairman capacity which go beyond the of a fraudulent vote

and four fraudulently botched filings with the BOE and the calling of a meeting in violation of

the State Law and the LCRP bylaws.

At minimum Meghan Gallagher is the de facto Chairman of the LRCP. She was elected

at the June 14, 2008 organizational meeting. She has planned and presided over 3 meetings of the

LRCP. She has made appointments to numerous positions in the LRCP. She has created a

standing committee called the Bylaws Review Committee. She has been widely recognized in

the news media as the Chairman of the LCRP. Furthermore, she has been in constant contact

with precinct committeeman, candidates, elected officials and is recognized by those individuals

as the Chairman of the individuals. Moreover, she has maintained control of the LCRP

headquarter and assist other officers in the party as needed. In the light of the evidence and the

law it is clear that Meghan Gallagher is the Chairman of the Party.

2. R.C. 3517.04 through R.C. 3517.06 only apply to "organizational meetings" .

The general rule in Ohio is that election laws are mandatory and require strict

compliance unless the statute at issue expressly provides that substantial compliance is

acceptable. State ex rel. Barletta v. Fersch, 99 Ohio St.3d 295, 791 N.E.2d 452, 2003-Ohio-3629,

at ¶ 17; State ex rel. Vickers v. Summit Cty. Council, 97 Ohio St.3d 204, 777 N.E.2d 830, 2002-

Ohio-5583, at ¶ 32; State ex rel. Commt. for the Referendum of Lorain Ordinance No. 77-01 v.

Lorain Cty. Bd. of Elections, 96 Ohio St.3d 308, 774 N.E.2d 239, 2002-Ohio-4194, at ¶ 49. R.C.

5705.217 does not expressly permit substantial compliance with the certification requirement.

Therefore, in the absence of a recognized exception, strict compliance is necessary.

The BOE has no lawful authority to accept or act on the filings referenced in R.C.

3517.04 through R.C. 3517.06 unless they relate to "organizational" meetings defined in statute.

R.C. 3517.04 clearly provides that such organizational meetings "…shall be held not earlier than

six nor later than fifteen days following the declaration of the results by the board of elections of

the election of members of county central committees in that county." The statute specifically

provides the outgoing chairman, outgoing secretary, or a member designated by a Board of

Elections member of the same party to call a meeting to order and "proceed to organize a

meeting" by electing a temporary chairman. This only can proceed in limited circumstances

which do not exist here. The use of the wording of R.C. 3517.05 which allows to BOE to act

upon committee lists only in the event "more than one organized group claims to be the rightful

county central or executive committee". The documents filed by Seles today apparently have not

met this requirement as she scratched out the words required by statute indicating they must have

held an organizational meeting. Further, Jan Lowe is not part of the Hoag's committee

and therefore cannot be the Secretary of the central committee pursuant to R.C. 3517.04. Further,

Seles and Lowe list that the members are elected for a two year term beginning on January 7,

2010. The members obviously cannot be elected for this term, as a primary election will be held

in May 2010 and all members and officers will be vacated. Their statement may be an indication

that they are trying to pull another sham and deprive honest registered voters from running for

these seats in May 2010.This statute clearly applies only to disputes arising at the time of

organization of these committees and not afterwards. Any change of executives or members must

occur pursuant to the ORC and the bylaws. If Hoag and Simpson think they have a validly held

group they need to pursue their proper legal remedies to out those in the de facto positions.

Pursuant to Ohio law one holds their office until legally ousted by some lawful process but these

individuals seek to use the statute drafted to resolve organizational disputes to resolve post

organizational replacement of executives. See The central committee of the hilton county

republican party, et al.,v.Ralph B. KOHNEN, Jr., et al. 1991 WL 355201 (Ohio App. 1 Dist.)

In accordance with R.C. 3517.04, the organization meeting must be held not earlier

than six nor later than fifteen days following the declaration of the results by the board of

elections of the election of members of county central committees. The BOE is certainly aware

that, under R.C. 3517.04, there could not be any lawful organizational meeting. While it is

unfortunate that Simpson and Hoag made false declarations to the BOE to initiate legal process,

the BOE needs look no further than the face of the documents filed and the relevant statutes to

know that it does not have legal authority to proceed because it can only act under R.C. 3517.04

through .06 can upon filings made pursuant to "organizational meetings" and there was no such

meeting as defined by law.

3. Even if R.C. 3517.04 applies to disputes involving non-organized groups the BOE cannot send the filings to the state central committee because they are frivolous on their face and the BOE cannot "certify" them.

R.C. 3517.04 requires that the BOE examine the lists and "... certify them to the state

central committee of the party concerned." “Certify” means “to confirm or attest often by a

document under hand or seal as being true, meeting a standard, or being as represented.”

Webster's Third New International Dictionary (1986) 367; see also Garner, Black's Law

Dictionary (8th Ed.2004) 241, defining “certify” as “[t]o attest as being true or as meeting certain

criteria. ”For example language of R.C. 519.12 requires the board of township trustees to

"certify" the petition to the board of elections. This creates a limited authority under to

determine whether a township zoning referendum petition is valid on its face, but it does not

inquire into questions not evident on the face of the petition. See, e.g., 1971 Ohio Atty.Gen.Ops.

No. 71-052, 2-176, 2-178; cf. State ex rel. Sinay v. Sodders (1997), 80 Ohio St.3d 224, 228-229,

685 N.E.2d 754 at 231, 685 N.E.2d 754, interpreting comparable authority for municipal officers

in certifying municipal petitions.

R.C. 3517.06 requires a list of officers and members and the Executive Committee that is

formed by the Central Committee.

R.C. 3517.03 provides:

Each major party controlling committee shall elect an executive committee that shall have the powers granted to it by the party controlling committee, and provided to it by law.

The controlling committee of the LCRP is the Central Committee pursuant to its bylaws. Only a

validly formed central committee formed at a valid organizational meeting can elect an executive

committee. This is why R.C. 3517.05 requires "If more than one organized group claims to be

the rightful county central or executive committee, each such group shall file a list of its officers

and members as provided in section 3517.06 ". (emphasis added). R.C. 3517.06 requires the lists

of members and officers be filed "promptly after the organization of each of such committees".

The organizational meeting of this party was in 2008 as required by statute. Both Board members

Lynn Olman and Pat Kriner participated in that organizational meeting and know it to be true.

Two lists were filed today by the Hoag-Simpson fantasy group. One was a list of purported

Central Committee members and the other is purported to be the Executive Committee members.

On the face of the statute they have not complied with R.C. 3517.05 because it requires 4 lists to

be filed. We have no idea who the officers are supposed to be. Furthermore both lists cannot be

validly signed by a secretary because this invalid group could not call a meeting or elect a

secretary. The lists they filed on 12/23/09 showed they had no secretary. It also had central

committee members in non-existent precincts and had somehow removed about 50 central

committee members. There is no statutory or bylaw procedure allowing for removal of central

committee members. For these 2 reasons the first filed list of central committee members did not

represent a valid central committee and could not elect any officers or secretaries or even hold

additional meetings. Apparently the Hoag Simpson group has still not read the necessary statutes

and at the least has not complied with them.

The filed documents are frivolous on their face because they are based upon an illegal

removal of over 100 central committee members. Mr. Simpson and his attorneys stipulated in

federal court, on the record, that the lists filed on 12/23/09 were an accurate list of individuals on

their central committee and executive committees. .As mentioned above, the lists filed cannot

lawfully represent accurate central committee constituents as there is no lawful way to remove

the 100 or so that are missing from the list. This can be seen by comparing the lists to the

original lists filed with the secretary of state. Likewise this illegal central committee group

cannot elect executive committees.

4. Olman and Kriner cannot act to call any meetings or vote in any meetings as their conflict of interest violates their ethical duties imposed under the law.

Lynn Olman and Patrick Kriner participated in the alleged meeting held by Hoag and

recruited members to attend the meeting. They apparently voted in their positions as central

committee members and then acted upon their own vote as members of the BOE. Neither Kriner

nor Olman can participate in actions by the BOE relating to disputing factions when they claim

to be a member of one of those factions. This is a conflict of interest and a violation of their

ethical duties under the policy1. Kriner and Olman are members of the Hoag-Simpson faction

but not the genuine LCRP committees. Chairman Stainbrook has accepted their resignations (See

attached letter). Third interest in one group and not the other creates a self serving use of their

BOE position and thus a conflict. Further more Kriner has a conflict as Hans Schnapp the

secretary of the LCRP Executive committee has a pending lawsuit wherein Kriner is an

intervenor/third party defendant. The lawsuit pits the LCRP against Kriner and seeks to have his

appointment to the BOE declared illegal. Kriner intervened into that action because he claimed

he had a strong interest in stopping the LCRP EC from 1 The Secretary of State Ethics Policy

issued December 11, 2007 sets forth the ethical duties for BOE employees and members and

indicates Kriner and Olman have already violated their ethical duties. (See policy at articles

III(H), IV(A), and IV(B).

Now he wishes to call meetings, and certify documents, from a group he helped form, and

votes in, all in an effort to try and keep his job. This is beyond a conflict of interest. It is fraud

and corruption in office, constitutes malfeasance and clearly serves as grounds for immediate

removal by the SOS under R.C. 3501.16. Olman is really no different in that he is a member of

the Hoag-Simpson group and now wishes to certify illegal documents to assist them. He knows

the LCRP is not going to recommend him and at one point even told Stainbrook that he would do

everything to take his legs out if he was going to interfere with the BOE. Thus both are

completely tainted and cannot act to certify these documents which are clearly fraudulent on

their face. Instead the BOE should be referring this matter to the prosecutor's office because

these individuals have now twice submitted patently illegal documents to the BOE. This self

serving use of their authority as a BOE member to preserve their jobs at the BOE by calling a

meeting to certify these sham documents or otherwise voting on them is a violation of their

ethical duties imposed under the law. They should not be allowed to participate in any vote to

call a meeting nor in any action taken at such a meeting. Furthermore the ethics violation of

Kriner and Olman constitutes fraud under R.C. 3599.42 and is criminal. Likewise the filing of

false statements which indicate that an organizational meeting was held filed by Christine Seles,

Hoag, and Simpson are also criminal.

5. Declaratory and Injunctive Releif

The purpose of the Uniform Declaratory Judgments Act is to provide procedural means

to settle controversies and to afford relief from uncertainty with respect to rights, status and other

legal relations. The courts have frequently rendered declaratory judgments as to the validity and

construction of various kinds of insurance contracts and as to the rights of the parties arising

therefrom. 16 American Jurisprudence, 311, Section 35; Aetna Life Ins. Co. of Hartford v.

Haworth, 300 U.S. 227, 57 S.Ct. 461, 81 L.Ed. 617, 108 A.L.R. 1000

Ohio Civ. Rule 65(B) provides inter alia that :

A temporary restraining order may be granted without written or oral notice to the adverse party or that party's attorney only if (1) it clearly appears from specific facts shown by affidavit or by the verified complaint that immediate and irreparable injury, loss, or damage will result to the applicant before the adverse party or that party's attorney can be heard in opposition, and (2) the applicant's attorney certifies to the court in writing the efforts, if any, which have been made to give the notice and the reasons supporting the claim that notice should not be required.

Ohio courts have been guided by the following well-recognized criteria in determining

whether a preliminary injunction is proper: (1) the likelihood of plaintiff's success on the merits;

(2) whether the injunction will save the plaintiff from irreparable injury; (3) whether the

injunction would harm others; and (4) whether the public interest would be served by the

injunction. See e.g., USACO Coal Co. v. Carbomin Energy, Inc., 689 F.2d 94 (6th Cir. 1982);

Diamond v. Gentry Acquisition Corp. (1998), 531 N.E. 2d 777.

1. The likelihood of plaintiff's success on the merits.

There can be no doubt that the Plaintiff will prevail on the merits given the clear cut facts and

the relevant law as established above. This Court has the power pursuant to Ohio Civ. R. 65,

R.C. § 2727.02, and Ohio Common law, to enjoin the BOE and State Central Committee's

wrongful Acts because there is no lawful way for the claimed fraudulent committies to exist, it is

their duty to bring their evidence to court and unseat the incumbents and because the BOE

cannot act lawfully or ethically in this matter.

2. Plaintiff Will Be Irreparably Harmed If The Requested Injunctive Relief Is Not Granted.

It is beyond dispute that the plaintiff will suffer irreparable harm if the temporary restraining

order is not granted. In this regard irreparable harm has been defined as follows:

To be irreparable, the injury need not be beyond the possibility of repair, or beyond possible compensation and damages, nor need it be very great. The term ‘irreparable damage’ does not have reference to the amount of damage caused, rather to the difficulty of measuring the amount of damages inflicted. Arthur Murray Dance Studios of Cleveland it Witter, (Cuyahoga Ct. 1952), 62 Ohio Law Abs. 17, 42.

In this instance Gallagher seeks to protect her title to office and force the BOE to limit its

actions to those provided under the law. Each illegal act that occurs injures Gallagher in her title

and her duties as well as her party. The ridiculous assertions of the fraudulent group persist

because the BOE allows Olman and Kriner to vote despite their conflict of interest. It continues

because the BOE will not inform the rouge group that it cannot resolve this dispute pursuant to

R.C. 3517.05 or even acknowledge on the face of the documents that they are invalid in

composition of the committes and the missing executives. This self serving use of the BOE to

assist a group they belong to clearly harms Gallagher as well as the public and the image of our

Lucas County Prosecutors and the BOE itself.

Consequently, if the temporary restraining order is not granted, the amount of damage to

Plaintiffs would be virtually impossible to determine.

3. There Is No Substantial Harm To Defendant.

If a temporary restraining order is granted, the BOE will not be harmed. In fact it will

benefit. First it can spend its time on actions it is lawfully allowed to do. Second its reputation

for dishonest will be enhanced. Third, it may seave the taxpayers a lot of money due to the

continuing financial harm causwed by its illegal acts. The BOE is not harmed but instead

benefited form a TRO.

Consequently, there will be no harm to Defendant should a temporary restraining order be

granted.

4. The Public Interest Benefits From The Issuance Of An Injunction.

As indicated previously, the public interest would be served by granting the relief sought.

Confusion among the public as to the rightful part, the true endorsed candidates, accurate

political uinformation and and honest and transparent BOE are all reason why the public has

legitimate concern to the issues in this case. The public interest is always served by the orderly

administration of justice as opposed to rogue factions twho ignore the law or initiate legal

proceedings through the filing of fraudulent documents.

III. CONCLUSION

Plaintiff has conclusively shown that the BOE and State Central Committee have no

authority to act on the fraudulent filings of the Hoag-Simpson group and that absent immediate

injunctive releif irreperable harm will occur. Plaintiff has now just learend that the BOE took its

illegal action and referred the documents to the State Central committee because it acted so

quickly that a lawsuit could not be filed in between yesterday at 4:00pm when they amended the

agenda and 8:30 am this morning whent they had a meeting and voted to refer the fraudulent lists

to the State Central Committee under R.C. 3517.05 contrary to law. The court's intervention is

needed NOW!

WHEREFORE, plaintiff prays for a judgment which declares that R.C. 3517.04

through .06 refer only to groups formed by organizational meetings; and

Declaratory releif that Defendant BOE has no legal right "certify" the group proffered by

Simpson-Hoag, Seles, and Lowe and send them to the Ohio State Republican Party Central

Committee or otherwise become involved in this intra-party dispute; and

Plaintiff prays for a declaratory judgment declaring the LRCP Central Committee &

Executive Committee, as well as the officers proffered to the BOE by Stainbrook and Gallagher

are the de facto and de jure list of the LRCP Central Committee & Executive Committee; and

A Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction restraining the BOE or State

Central Committee from taking any actions on disputes which began from the fraudulent

documents submitted by Hoag-Simpson to the BOE, or attempts to become involved with the

resolution of intraparty disputes as to the legitimacy of committees outside of organizational

meetings as that term is used by statute.

A Declaration that any actions taken by the BOE or State Central Committee before this

court can Act are declared invalid under Ohio law and of no effect.

Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction restraining the BOE or State Central

Committee from taking any actions on disputes which began from the fraudulent documents

submitted by Hoag-Simpson to the BOE, or attempts to become involved with the resolution of

intraparty disputes as to the legitimacy of committees outside of organizational meetings as that

term is used by statute.

Attorneys fees, costs of this action and such other relief this court finds just.

DATED: January 12, 2010 Respectfully Submitted,

_______________________Anthony J. DeGidio (0069064)712 Farrer St.Maumee, OH 43537Tel : (419) 509-1878Fax: 419-740-2556Email: tony@cyberlawyer.comCOUNSEL OF RECORD FORPLAINTIFF

_Scott A. Ciolek PE (0082779)Ciolek LTD520 Madison Ave. Suite 820Toledo, Ohio 43604Tel: (419) 740-5935Fax: (866) 890-0419Email: scott@cw.law.proCOUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing Memorandum in Support of TRO was filed this 12th day of January 2010. Parties may access this filing throughout the Court's system. Notice of this filing will be sent to all parties via electronic or U.S. Mail.

______________________Counsel for Plaintiff,

IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEASOF LUCAS COUNTY, OHIO

MEGHAN GALLAGHER

Case No. _____Plaintiff

v. DECLARATION OF MEGHAN GALLAGHER

LUCAS COUNTY BOARD OF ELECTIONS, et al

Defendants*******************************************************************

I Meghan Gallagher, state and declare as follows:

1. I am the duly elected Chairman of the Central Committee of the Lucas County

Republican Party (the “Party”).

2. I was elected at the organizational meeting of the Party held June 14, 2008 pursuant to

R.C. 3517.04.

3. I am over the age of eighteen. I have personal knowledge of the facts contained herein,

and if called as a witness I could and would competently testify thereto.

4. As Chairman of the Central Committee of the Party, pursuant to the Party’s bylaws, I

have authority to officially commence and preside at all meetings of the Party’s

Central Committee.

5. In accordance with the requirements of R.C. Chapter 3517 and the Party bylaws, I am

responsible for calling the organizational meeting to order pursuant to 3517.04, and

perform other duties as directed by the Party‘s bylaws.

6. Exhibit A of Plaintiff’s complaint is a fair and accurate copy of the Lucas County

Republican Party bylaws that the Central Committee approved in the June 14, 2008

organizational meeting. I know this to be true because I attended that meeting and

was elected Central Committee chairman during that meeting.

7. Exhibit B of Plaintiff’s complaint is a fair and accurate copy of the Lucas County

Republican Party Central Committee Officers and Members filed after the July 2008

organizational meeting. I know this to be true because I assisted the Central

Committee Secretary, Mark Nowak in its creation. I obtained a copy of this filing

from the Secretary of State.

8. Exhibit C of Plaintiff’s complaint is a fair and accurate copy of the Lucas County

Republican Party Executive Committee Officers and Members. I know this to be true

because I assisted the Executive Committee Secretary, Hans Schnapp in its creation. I

obtained a copy of this filing from the Secretary of State.

9. Exhibit D of Plaintiff’s complaint is a fair and accurate copy of the Secretary of State

Directive 2008-41 I downloaded from the Secretary of State website.

10. Exhibit E of Plaintiff’s complaint is a fair and accurate copy of the Lucas County

Republican Party Central Committee Officers and Members as of December 24,

2009. I know this to be true because I assisted the Central Committee Secretary, Mark

Nowak in its creation. I obtained a copy of this filing from the Secretary of State.

11. Exhibit F of Plaintiff’s complaint is a fair and accurate copy of the Lucas County

Republican Party Executive Committee Officers and Members as of December 24,

2009. I know this to be true because I assisted the Executive Committee Secretary,

Hans Schnapp in its creation. I obtained a copy of this filing from the Secretary of

State.

12. Exhibit G of Plaintiff’s complaint is a fair and accurate copy of one of the meeting

notice for the December 21, 2009 Central Committee meeting that I assisted the

Central Committee Secretary, in its creation and mailing.

13. Exhibit H of Plaintiff’s complaint is a fair and accurate copy of one of the alleged list

of Lucas County Republican Central Committee Officers and Members signed by

Paul Hoag on December 23, 2009. This copy was obtained from the Lucas County

Board of Elections.

14. Exhibit I of Plaintiff’s complaint is a fair and accurate copy of one of the Lucas

County Republican Executive Committee Officers and Members signed by Jeff

Simpson on December 23. This copy was obtained from the Lucas County Board of

Elections.

15. Exhibit J of Plaintiff’s complaint is a fair and accurate copy of one of the Board of

Elections meeting notices for a Special Meeting that was to be held on December 26,

2009 . This copy was obtained from the Lucas County Board of Elections.

16. Exhibit K of Plaintiff’s complaint is a fair and accurate copy of the letter that

Anthony J DeGidio sent to the Lucas County Board of Elections. This copy was

obtained from Anthony J. DeGidio.

17. Exhibit L of Plaintiff’s complaint is a fair and accurate copy of the opinion obtained

from the Lucas County Prosecutor on January 7, 2010. This copy was obtained from

Anthony J. DeGidio.

18. Exhibit M of Plaintiff’s complaint is a fair and accurate copy of the opinion obtained

from the Lucas County Prosecutor on January 7, 2010. This copy was obtained from

Anthony J. DeGidio.

19. Exhibit N of Plaintiff’s complaint is a fair and accurate copy of the filing Jan Lowe

submitted to the BOE on January 11, 2010. This copy was obtained thru a public

records request. Marty Limmer fulfilled the request and sent it via email.

20. Exhibit O of Plaintiff’s complaint is a fair and accurate copy of the filing Chris Seles

submitted to the BOE on January 11, 2010. This copy was obtained thru a public

records request. Marty Limmer fulfilled the request and sent it via email.

21. Exhibit P of Plaintiff’s complaint is a fair and accurate copy of the amended Board

Meeting Notice sent on January 11, 2010 for the January 12, 2010 meeting. This copy

was mailed to the LCRP.

22. Exhibit Q of Plaintiff’s complaint is a fair and accurate copy of the letter that

Anthony J DeGidio sent to the Lucas County Board of Elections. This copy was

obtained from Anthony J. DeGidio.

23. Exhibit A of Plaintiff’s TRO is a fair is and accurate copy of the December 22,

Toledo Blade article I obtained off of the internet.

24. Exhibits B and C of Plaintiff’s TRO are fair is and accurate copies of the resignation

letters from the LCRP from Lynn Oman and Pat Kriner that I obtained from Jon

Stainbrook.

I declare under the penalty of perjury and the law of the State of Ohio that the foregoing is true

and correct.

______________________________Meghan Gallagher

LCRP Central Committee Chairman

And Executive Committee Member

IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEASOF LUCAS COUNTY, OHIO

Meghan GallagherChairman,Lucas County Republican Party Central Committee10.S. Superior Toledo, OH 43604

Case No. ______________

Plaintiff TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER

v.

LUCAS COUNTY BOARD OF ELECTIONSOne Government Center, Suite 300Toledo, OH 43604

and

OHIO REPUBLICAN PARTY STATE CENTRAL COMMITTEE211 South Fifth StreetColumbus, OH 43215

Defendants

*******************************************************************

This matter came on to be and was heard on Plaintiff’s Complaint, the Affidavit of

Plaintiff, and Plaintiff’s motion with memorandum in support for a Temporary Restraining

Order, and the verification of Plaintiff Meghan Gallagher, and it appearing to the Court that

defendant is committing acts as set forth in the Complaint, and will continue to do so unless

restrained by Order of this Court, and that immediate and irreparable injury, loss, or damage will

result to the Plaintiff before notice can be given and they or their attorney can be heard in

opposition;

Therefore, for good cause shown, the Court, being fully advised in the premises,

IT IS ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that defendants Lucas County BOE and

Republican State Central Committee, and all persons in active concert or participation with them,

be, and they hereby are, restrained, enjoined and prohibited, pending hearing and determination

of Plaintiff’s motion for Preliminary Injunction, from in any manner, either directly or indirectly,

committing any of the following acts:

(a) Certifying or taking any actions based upon the committee and officer's lists

created and submitted by any group opposing Gallagher's authority to act as De

Facto and De Jure Central Committee Chair and executive committee member.

(b) Sending the lists to the Ohio State Republican Central Committee or processing

such lists in any manner.

(c) Make any determination as to the legitimate LCRPEC and CC members and

officers.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that this Temporary

Restraining Order shall not become effective until Plaintiff first posts security in the sum of

___________ for the payment of such costs and damages as may be incurred or suffered by any

party who is found to have been wrongfully enjoined or restrained, such bond to be approved by

the Court or by the Clerk of Court; and

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that this Temporary

Restraining Order shall expire within 14 days after entry unless within such time the Order for

good cause shown is extended, or unless Defendants consent that it may be extended for a longer

period of time; and

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that Plaintiff’s Motion for

Preliminary Injunction be, and hereby is, assigned for hearing on ____________, ____,2010, at

_________ a.m., p.m., in Courtroom No. ____ in the Lucas County Courthouse; and

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that copies of (1) this

Temporary Restraining Order, (2) Plaintiff’s Complaint, (3) Plaintiff’s Motion for Temporary

Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction, (4) Brief in Support of Plaintiff’s Motions for

Temporary Restraining Order and for Preliminary Injunction, together with proper summons

issuing, be immediately served by certified mail, return receipt requested, upon the Defendants

identified in the caption of the Complaint.

Issued at Toledo, Lucas County, Ohio this ______ day of ________, 2010.

_______________________

Judge