[LFC Comments: Attorney Robert Gargasz sent this information to us for publication. He filed a lawsuit against State officials for violating the Constitutional rights under Article 1 of the Ohio Constitution of a citizen named Carol Gray.
Governor DeWine’s draconian rules combating the COVID-19 virus have prevented a Mom (Carol Gray) from seeing her special needs child.
Here is what Article 1 of the Ohio Constitution reads:
“All men are, by nature, free and independent, and have certain inalienable rights, among which are those of enjoying and defending life and liberty, acquiring, possessing, and protecting property, and seeking and obtaining happiness and safety.”
We will try to help you navigate the legal references. We are not attorneys, nor have we played one on television. However, unlike the forgotten children of the Cleveland Public Schools [70% cannot read],we can read….sorry, we have digressed.]
Upon getting the unfavorable ruling from the Lorain County Court and Ohio’s Assistant Attorney General, Mr. Gargasz sent the following email to his client, Carol Gray:
Please take your fight to the media and press. After reading this 12(B)(6) motion, I am convinced these lawyers from the state are Constitutionally ignorant and stupid. But worse, they lack empathy, compassion and are gutless as they failed to stand up for obvious injustice against unconstitutional policy created by the State. They use their female gender to mask their boss man’s lack of compassion and demonstrated tyrannical regulations.
12 (B) (6) reads: (6) failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted]
Mr. Gargasz’s email continues:
This should be front Page Headline News:
Ohio Attorney General asserts the Ohio Constitution and the Bill of Rights under the Constitution of the United States of America sets forth no natural right endowed by the Creator (God) for a Mother to have human contact with her daughter. (Handicapped and mentally disabled Child). WAKE ME GOD FROM MY NIGHTMARE!
If Yost and his staff aren’t even capable of setting Constitutional Policy for a Mother and Child, then How can we trust him to advise the Governor or anyone else? !
What does it say of the effectiveness of sitting Judges in Lorain County, Ohio if they buy this Bogus argument and fail to provide the visitation as being prevented by defendants policies?
Please note NOT ONE defendant has sought to facilitate the human contact visitation between the Mother and her Child.
The Public must be informed of these heartless, callous and cold-hearted governmental agents of Ohio’s Attorney General. Who gave the Orders to establish and defend such unconstitutional tyranny?
A good journalist would name names, ask questions, and expose the tyrant(s) responsible.
Be a good journalist.
You are free to question and speak with Mom / Guardian Carol Gray.
Gargasz, Robert J. – Attorney
Here is the State’s answer to the lawsuit. It is a motion to dismiss the claim: Fax Cover and MTD
Here is a summary of the motion to dismiss by the State’s Assistant Attorney General:
“Plaintiffs Carol Gray and Carol Gray as Guardian of Ann Marie Wester appear to be a
mother and a daughter prevented “from seeing each other since mid-March 2020 to the present.” Compl. ¶ 2. Plaintiffs allege that the “unconstitutional policies” of Defendants Mike DeWine, Lance Himes, and Dave Yost caused this mother-daughter separation. Id. at Introduction. According to Plaintiffs, these policies violate “the Ohio Federal Constitution including Article 1, section of the Ohio Constitution.” Id. at ¶ 5. Plaintiffs ask the Court for an order “mandating human contact between a Mother and her Daughter. Plaintiffs further request an Order mandating human contact between a Guardian and her Ward.”
“The legal basis for Plaintiffs’ claims is unclear. Plaintiffs cite to the “Ohio Federal
Constitution and Article 1 section of the Ohio Constitution” to support their claim that Defendants violated Plaintiffs’ purported constitutional right to human contact between a mother and daughter. But neither source of authority can form the basis of a cognizable claim [LFC: Means within the jurisdiction of the court] for relief. Nor do Plaintiffs cite to any specific provision of the federal or Ohio constitutions. Plaintiffs’ Complaint is also devoid of any operative facts sufficient to give Defendants fair notice of the nature of the action against them. (Emphasis added by LFC)
Because no claims are made against Defendants, nor any operative facts alleged against
them, Plaintiffs’ Complaint be should be dismissed.”
[LFC Comments: We have to admit that we are scratching our heads on this ruling. If the Lorain County court cannot rule on a violation on Article 1 of the Ohio Constitution, who can? If there are any attorneys reading this and they can provide some insight, please write in our comments section.]