Frenchko Lawsuit Complaint

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

EASTERN DIVISION
NIKI FRENCHKO Case Number:

c/ o Barron, Peck, Bennie & Schlemmer
3074 Madison Rd. Judge:
Cincinnati, Ohio 45209,
Plaintiff,
-VS-
PAUL MONROE
(official and individual capacity)
160 High Street N.W.
Warren, Ohio 44481
And
TRUMBULL COUNTY
Warren, Ohio 44481
And
TRUMBULL COUNTY
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
Warren, Ohio 44481
And
TRUMBULL COUNTY
SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT
Warren, Ohio 44481
And
SARGAENT HAROLD WIX

Warren, Ohio 44481
And
1
SARGENT ROBERT ROSS
Warren, Ohio 44481
And
MAURO CANTALAMESSA
Warren, Ohio 44481
And
FRANKFUDA
(individual capacity)
Warren, Ohio 44481
Defendants.
VERIFIED COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY,

INJUNCTIVE, AND MONETARY RELIEF WITH JURY DEMAND
Plaintiff Niki Frenchko states the following for her Complaint against Defendants
Trumbull County, Trumbull County Commissioners, Trumbull County Sheriff's
Department, Paul Monroe, Frank Fuda, Mauro Cantalamessa, Harold Wix, and Robert
Ross:
INTRODUCTION
1. This is an action under 42 U.S.C. 8 1983 for a ruthless false arrest intended to
punish a political adversary for criticizing the County Sheriff in violation of the
First, Fourth, and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution, as
2
well as Ohio law. Defendants all participated directly in a malicious arrest of
County Commissioner Frenchko because she criticized Sheriff Monroe for
accusations that Trumbull County inmates receive poor medical treatment, and
because Plaintiff Frenchko refused to apologize to Sheriff Monroe. In fact, after
expressly telling Commissioner Fenchko that she was disrupting a meeting
because she "talking about" the County's "top law enforcement officer,"
Defendants then proceeded to demand an apology. After Commissioner Frenchko
refused to apologize, Defendants arrested her for disrupting a public meeting
based upon a facially unconstitutional statute. Indeed, R.C. S 2917.12 permits a
government to arrest a person for speech that "outrages the sensibilities" of a
government board and hurts the government's feelings. This statute facially
discriminates against viewpoints, it is vague, and it violates the overbreadth
doctrine. In addition to this false arrest, Sheriff Monroe has continued a pattern
of abusing his police power to intimidate Commissioner Frenchko with battery and
unlawful seizures to interfere with her civil rights. In fact, Sheriff Monroe
specifically seized Commissioner Frenchko's phone and assaulted her in order to
intimidate her and deprive her of her right to take video recordings in an open
public meeting in a public building.
PARTIES
2. Plaintiff Niki Frenchko ("Frenchko") is a County Commissioner in Trumbull
County, and she resides in Trumbull County, Ohio.
3. Defendant Paul S. Monroe ("Monroe") is the Trumbull County Sheriff, and he is
named here in his individual and official capacities.
3
4. Defendant Mauro Cantalamessa ("Cantalamessa") is one of the Trumbull County
Commissioners, and he is named here in both his individual and official capacities.
5. Defendant Frank Fuda ("Fuda") was the President of the Board of Commissioners,
and he is named here in his individual capacity, as he is no longer has an official
capacity.
6. Defendant Sargent Harold Wix ("Wix") is a deputy of the Trumbull County
Sheriffs Department, and he is named here in both his individual and official
capacities.
7. Defendant Sargent Robert Ross ("Ross") is a deputy with the Trumbull County
Sheriffs Department, and he is named here in both his individual and official
capacities.
8. Defendant Trumbull County Sheriffs Department ("Sheriffs Department") is the
law enforcement agency for Trumbull County, Ohio.
9. Defendant Trumbull County Board of Commissioners ("Board") is the political
body of Trumbull County, Ohio.
10. Defendant Trumbull County ("County") is a body politic, which is capable of being
sued under R.C. $ 301.22.
11. This Complaint may refer to all Defendants named in their individual capacities as
"Individual Defendants" from time to time.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
12. This Court has jurisdiction over Commissioner Frenchko's claims because they are
brought primarily under 42 U.S.C. & 1983, and they are substantively questions of
federal law.
4
13. This Court has ancillary jurisdiction over Commissioner Frenchko's state law
claims because they relate to her federal claims.
14. Venue is proper in this Court because the transactions and occurrences happened
in Trumbull County, Ohio.
BACKGROUND INFORMATION
15. Commissioner Frenchko is a Trumbull County Commissioner.
16. Commissioner Frenchko is determined to bring accountability to Trumbull
County, and she uses her position as commissioner to vocalize her criticisms of
County officials when she feels those officials are not properly performing their
duties.
17. For example, Commissioner Frenchko has criticized Defendants for reentering a
contract with the same jail doctor in a manner she asserts lacks proper oversight
and accountability.
18. Defendants Cantalamessa and Fuda were the other commissioners during most of
the relative time period, and they comprised the majority of the Board of
Commissioners.
19. Commissioner Frenchko is critical of Commissioners Cantalamessa and Fuda, and
the trio are known to have passionate disagreements about the direction of the
County.
20. In fact, it is safe to say that the Commissioners have had many disputes during
meetings where they can raise their voices, interrupt one another, and sometimes
level certain accusations at each other.
21. Simply stated, all the Commissioners are critical of each other, and Commissioner
Frenchko suffers her share of criticisms.
5
22. Commissioner Frenchko is also vocally critical of Sheriff Monroe.
23. On June 1, 2022, Commissioner Frenchko read a letter from someone who held
herself out as the mother of a previously incarcerated male at a Trumbull County
jail.
24. The mother's letter claimed that the inmate requested, but did not receive, proper
medical care.
25. On June 2, 2022, Sheriff Monroe drafted a letter chastising Commissioner
Frenchko for reading the mother's statement during a public meeting. (Exhibit 1).
26. According to Sheriff Monroe, he investigated the allegations, and Sheriff Monroe
stated that he disagreed with Frenchko's statements.
27. Moreover, Sheriff Monroe complained that Commissioner Frenchko did not follow
the complaint procedure that Sheriff Monroe believes that she should follow. (Id.)
28.However, the letter fails to provide any authority the Sheriff has to actually demand
that a commissioner follows his desired complaint procedure. (Id.)
29.Nonetheless, Defendant Monroe's letter continues to spout dubious authority as
rationale to silence Commissioner Frenchko's speech.
30.According to the letter, Sheriff Monroe claimed that Commissioner Frenchko
"besmirched the performance of the men and women operating the Trumbull
County jail ... "
31. Finally, at its conclusion, Sheriff Monroe's letter demanded a "public apology"
from Commissioner Frenchko in the "same public forum as was the publication of'
what Sheriff Monroe claims were "false accusations."
6
32.Thus, Sheriff Monroe's letter expressly claims (wrongly) that Commissioner
Frenchko must follow a complaint procedure he demanded and publicly apologize
in a Commissioners' meeting.
33.It was Sheriff Monroe's plan that the clerk would read this letter at the next
Commissioners' meeting on June 7, 2022.
34. During that meeting, Sheriff Monroe sent two deputies to the meeting--Defendant
Wix and Defendant Ross.
35. This is abnormal.
36.Deputies did not normally attend Commissioners' meetings at the time, so it was
obvious that these deputies were there because of the Defendants' plan to arrest
Commissioner Frenchko.
37. Sheriff Monroe later claimed the deputies were there at the request of the other
Commissioners, but this merely shows that Defendants were all planning and
anticipating a verbal confrontation with Commissioner Frenchko prior to the
meeting.
38. During the meeting-at-issue, Clerk Paula Vivoda-Klotz read Sheriff Monroe's letter
into the record accusing Commissioner Frenchko of besmirching law enforcement
officials.
39.And Clerk Paula Vivoda-Klotz read the portion of the letter demanding that
Frenchko publicly apologize.
40.Commissioner Frenchko then decided to speak and defend herself against Sheriff
Monroe's allegations.
41. As soon as she began to address the letter's contents, Defendants began texting one
another.
7
42.In fact, upon information and belief, the Defendant Deputies and the Defendant
Commissioners were communicating with Sheriff Monroe.
43.Commissioner Frenchko continued to speak, defend herself, and criticize Sheriff
Monroe's oversight of the County jail.
44. When Commissioner Frenchko began speaking more about the inmate's
allegations, Defendant Commissioner Cantalamessa interrupted her and claimed
that she was beginning to "disrupt" the meeting because she "was talking about the
chieflaw enforcement officer of Trumbull County."
45. Therefore, Defendants made it perfectly clear that mere criticisms of their sheriff
constituted a "disruption" of a public meeting.
46. Defendants continued arguing with Frenchko that her speech was "unacceptable."
47. However, it was the Defendants who were disrupting the meeting at that time
because they were unable or unwilling to keep quiet and not interrupt
Commissioner Frenchko while she was speaking.
48.Defendant Fuda had just permitted the Clerk to read criticisms chastising
Frenchko, who is his political opponent, but when Frenchko criticized their
political ally, these criticisms were allegedly "disruptive."
49.In other words, Defendants decide what speech is "disruptive" solely on the
viewpoints that are expressed.
50. After Defendant Cantalamessa argued she was allegedly disruptive for criticizing
Sheriff Monroe, the deputies then began approaching Commissioner Frenchko.
51. Commissioner Frenchko attempted to continue and finish her speech.
52. Defendants began to demand that Frenchko "apologize to the Sheriff."
8
53. Defendants kept interrupting Commissioner Frenchko because she kept making
critical statements and refusing to apologize to Sheriff Monroe.
54. Then, Defendant Wix walked behind Commissioner Frenchko while she was
seated, and he ordered Commissioner Frenchko to stand up.
55. Commissioner Frenchko asked Defendant Wix why she needed to stand.
56. Instead of informing her of his reasoning, Defendant Wix offensively yanked the
chair she was sitting in for no apparent necessary reason.
57. Defendant Wix intentionally pulled the chair to intimidate, punish, and coerce
Commissioner Frenchko into submitting to his absurd demands.
58. Defendants Wix and Ross then forcefully escorted her from the meeting, and they
arrested her for disrupting a public meeting.
59. Defendants unfortunately did not remedy this poor judgment, and they instead
followed through with filing dubious criminal charges against Commissioner
Frenchko for disrupting a public meeting under R.C. & 2917.12.
60.Sheriff Monroe ordered, permitted, and encouraged this malicious prosecution of
his political rival in bad faith because he wanted to punish Frenchko for criticizing
him, the jail's medical services, and refusing to publicly apologize.
61. R.C. $ 2917.12 (the "Statute") states the following:
(A) No person, with purpose to prevent or disrupt a lawful meeting,

procession, or gathering, shall do either of the following:
() Do any act which obstructs or interferes with the due
conduct of such meeting, procession, or gathering;
(2) Make anv utterance, gesture, or display which
outrages the sensibilities of the group. (emphasis
added).
62. There is no objective standard in this Statute because it depends on the subjective
"sensibilities" of the government listener.
9
63. Essentially, this Statute provides the government the unbridled discretion to arrest
anyone for any comment made during a public meeting because it makes the
government mad.
64. The Generally assembly has seemingly passed a new version of this Statute which
goes into effect on April 6, 2023, but this amendment doubles down on this vague,
viewpoint-based law.
65. According to the new version, it is still unlawful to make any utterance, which
"outrages the sensibilities" of the government.
66. Here, after Defendants arrested Commissioner Frenchko, Defendants lacked the
self-awareness to even conceal their motives in the public.
67. Commissioner Cantalamessa expressly stated to reporters that "[t]o talk about
something that is unfounded or make something that is not necessarily true into
something that's true, we can't do that with other elected officials."
https://wwwwkbn.com/news/local-news/commissioner-niki-frenchko-arrested-
at-meeting/
68.This post-arrest comment follows the clear trend that the Defendants claimed
Commissioner Frenchko was largely "disruptive" because she was "talking about
the chieflaw enforcement officer of Trumbull County."
69.A special prosecutor was ultimately assigned to prosecute the case against
70. Frenchko's Counsel issued discovery requests during the malicious prosecution.
71. Frenchko's Counsel informed the special prosecutor he was seeking the text
messages, video surveillance, and phone records of the individual Defendants here
10
because they were seen texting and seemingly coordinating their efforts in the time
leading up to Commissioner Frenchko's dubious arrest.
72. Shockingly, it became known that Defendant Cantalamessa had his phone delete
and destroy evidence related to the criminal prosecution.
73. Upon information and belief, the other Defendants deleted records as well.
74. Surprisingly, the Special Prosecutor claimed that these records relating to the
arrest were not the County's problem because they were communications
contained on the Defendants' personal devices.
75. This is entirely incorrect because any communications related to a public body's
activities are public records under the Ohio Open Records Act regardless of
whether they are located on a public device, or on a personal device or email
account.
76. More importantly, people are not able to lawfully purge evidence related to an
ongoing criminal prosecution, and Mauro Cantalamessa recently again publicly
acknowledged that his phone deletes records.
77. The special prosecutor later dismissed the case against Commissioner Frenchko
even though the entire exchange was captured on video.
78. In other words, there was plenty of evidence about what occurred.
79. The evidence just showed that there was no probable cause or ability to criminally
punish Commissioner Frenchko for refusing to submit to a sheriffs ego.
80.Defendants' actions were not just dubious or negligent, Defendants intentionally
and maliciously used their police power in bad faith to arrest Commissioner
Frenchko because she was criticizing the County's "top law enforcement" official,
and she would not publicly apologize when demanded to do so.
11
81. Simply stated, Defendants battered Commissioner Frenchko, they humiliated her,
they restrained her, they caused emotional suffering, and they abused the justice
system because Commissioner Frenchko upset them with protected speech and
would not apologize for it.
82. Unfortunately, Defendant Monroe was not finished with his abuse of power.
83. Recently, Defendant Monroe attended a commissioners' meeting himself.
84.Commissioner Frenchko was live streaming the public meeting.
85. The meeting was a noticed public meeting in a public building that the public could
freely attend.
86.During the meeting, Sheriff Monroe was seated.
87. Commissioner Frenchko was again making suggestions concerning the medical
services at the County Jail.
88.Sheriff Monroe is seen on video getting out of his chair and rapidly approaching
89.Sherriff Monroe is heard objecting to the video and claiming that he did not
consent to being video recorded.
90.However, his "consent" is not needed.
91. Indeed, it is well-established that the Ohio Open Meetings Act guarantees that
people may record public meetings.
92. Moreover, it is common sense that videos can and will be present at public
meetings.
93. The media for example may show up at will and record public meetings.
94. Regardless, Sheriff Monroe approached Commissioner Frenchko protesting, and
he grabbed her smartphone, which was on a stand.
12
95. You can literally see his hand cover the lens in the video.
96.Commissioner Frenchko was holding the phone stand at the time.
97. Sheriff Monroe then snatched the phone and slammed it on the table.
98.Sheriff Monroe has since attempted to rewrite recorded reality, and he tried to
bizarrely claim that Commissioner Frenchko just randomly tried to slap his hand,
but that is offensive to both the truth and common sense.
99.Moreover, even the media's review could easily determine that Monroe
"appear[ed] to be trying to reach for the phone in the video."
https://www.wfmj.com/story/48523144/commissioner-frenchko-accuses-
trumbull-county-sheriff-of-attempting-to-unlawfully-seize-phone
100. Sheriff Monroe has also contradicted his own statements.
101. Sheriff Monroe also said that he felt Frenchko "recording him to be an
invasion of his privacy and that he had 'every right' to move the phone. ' (Id.)
102. Therefore, he admitted that he did indeed seize control of Commissioner
Fenchko's property under the assertion he has "every right" to seize her property.
103. Sheriff Monroe's own admissions exhibit that his actions were intentional,
and that he expressly decided to exercise dominion over her property to stop her
from recording during a public meeting.
104. These actions were not motivated to protect the public.
105. These actions were individually motivated to retaliate against and punish a
political rival.
106. These actions were made by the final decisionmakers, were made according
to Defendants' policies, or they were otherwise ratified by the County Defendants.
13
COUNT I
42 U.S.C.$1983-First Amendment Facial Challenge-_Free Speech
Against All Defendants
107. Commissioner Frenchko restates all previous paragraphs.
108. Under the First Amendment of the United States Constitution, laws cannot
restrain or punish speech based upon viewpoints.
109. R.C.S2917.12 regulates viewpoints because it makes it a criminal offense to
make any utterance that outrages the sensibilities of a government board during a
public meeting.
110. Consequently, if any person expresses any viewpoint during a public
meeting that hurts the government's feelings, the government has the unbridled
discretion to criminally charge that person.
111. This viewpoint-based restraint facially violates the First Amendment
because it restrains and punishes viewpoints based upon the listener experiencing
offense because of those viewpoints.
112. Moreover, the Statute is unconstitutional because it runs afoul of the
overbreadth doctrine.
113. Although there are theoretically some circumstances where the Statute
might restrain fighting words, the Statute is clearly capable of restraining and
criminalizing protected criticisms of elected officials.
114. Here, Defendants used this Statute to arrest and retaliate against
Commissioner Frenchko because she allegedly "besmirched" the Sheriff's
Department, criticized the top County law enforcement official, and refused to
apologize for her criticisms.
14
115. This Statute was directly utilized to punish a viewpoint on matters of great
public concern, which included no fighting words.
116. Commissioner Frenchko is entitled to injunctive relief, declaratory
judgment, attorney fees, costs, and compensatory and nominal damages. 1
COUNT II
42 U.S.C.81983-Fourteenth Amendment Facial Challenge-_Due Process
Against All Defendants
118. Statutes violate the Fourteenth and First Amendments when they are
facially vague.
119. R.C. 3 2917.12 is vague because "outrages the sensibilities" is a subjective
standard providing the government listener with the unbridled discretion to
determine what constitutes a violation of the Statute.
120. The potential criminal speech, and whether that speech is unlawful, is
completely dependent on the "sensibilities" of the government, which can have
different outcomes in different meetings depending on the particular emotional
fragility of any particular government body.
121. There is no objective standard that a speaker can determine what she can
and cannot say to not face possible arrest.
122. Here, the vagueness of this Statute was apparent because Defendants used
this Statute to retaliate against Frenchko because she hurt the Defendants' feelings
and refused to publicly apologize.
Under the 11Amendment, Frenchko seeks only injunctive relief regarding the Attorney General. All
claims for money damages are against the County actors.
15
judgment, attorney fees, costs, and compensatory and nominal damages.2
COUNT III
42 U.S.C.&198R-First Amendment Retaliation and Compelled Speech
All Defendants in all Capacities
125. Defendants all retaliated against Frenchko for criticizing law enforcement
officials and refusing to publicly apologize.
126. There is ample notice to public officials that they cannot arrest and retaliate
against people for criticizing law enforcement and government officials.
127. There is ample notice that public officials cannot punish people for refusing
to state allegiance to a government or its officials.
128. Indeed, it is well known that a government has no power to compel most
speech, Jet alone apologies.
129. Nonetheless, Defendants maliciously ignored their Constitutional duties to
not retaliate against Commissioner Frenchko for her criticisms and refusal to
apologize.
130. Defendants were not acting in the public's interest, but they were rather
acting in bad faith to retaliate against their political rival.
131. Defendants intended to humiliate and emotionally harm Commissioner
Frenchko.
Under the 11 Amendment, Frenchko seeks only injunctive relief regarding the Attorney General. All
claims for money damages are against the County actors.
16
132. Defendants had the final decision-making authority to arrest and file
charges against Commissioner Frenchko, and they all worked together to abuse
that power.
133. Defendants damaged Frenchko, they humiliated her intentionally, and they
caused her emotional damage relating to this unlawful arrest.
judgment, compensatory damages, nominal damages, attorney fees, and costs
against all Defendants, as well as punitive damages against the individual
Defendants.
COUNT IV
2U.S.C.S1983-Fourth Amendment-Malicious Arrest, Malicious
Prosecution. and Unlawful Seizure of Person
All Defendants in all Capacities
136. Defendants worked together and conspired to punish Commissioner
Frenchko.
137. Defendants seized the person of Commissioner Frenchko without probable
cause to arrest her.
138. Defendants unlawfully arrested Commissioner Frenchko without probable
cause.
139. Defendants maliciously prosecuted Commissioner Frenchko without
probable cause to even arrest her, let alone prosecute her for refusing to apologize.
17
140. No reasonable government official would believe he had the ability to arrest
a commissioner during a meeting for criticizing a Sheriffs department and
refusing to apologize.
141. Defendants were not protecting the public.
142. On the contrary, Defendants maliciously seized Commissioner Frenchko
and arrested her for the purpose of retaliating against her for her critical
viewpoints and refusal to apologize.
143. Defendants acted in bad faith, and with a conscious disregard for
Commissioner Frenchko's rights.
caused her emotional harm relating to this unlawful arrest.
judgment, compensatory damages, nominal damages, attorney fees, and costs
against all Defendants, as well as punitive damages against the individual
Defendants.
COUNTV
False Arrest
All Individual Defendants in Their Individual Capacities
147. Defendants had no lawful authority or probable cause to arrest or otherwise
confine Commissioner Frenchko.
148. Regardless, Defendants intentionally restrained, arrested, and confined
18
149. Commissioner Frenchko was aware of her arrest, and she did not consent
to her arrest.
150. Defendants acted maliciously and in conscious disregard of Frenchko's
rights.
judgment, compensatory damages, nominal damages, attorney fees, costs, and
punitive damages.
COUNTVI
Malicious Prosecution
154. Defendants had no lawful authority or probable cause to arrest or otherwise
confine Commissioner Frenchko.
155. Regardless, Defendants filed charges against Commissioner Frenchko.
156. Defendants acted maliciously and in conscious disregard of Frenchko's
rights.
157. As a result, Frenchko suffered damages apart from her initial arrest.
caused her emotional harm relating to this prosecution.
punitive damages.
19
COUNTVII
Civil Conspiracv
161. Defendants worked together, and they conspired to falsely arrest and later
maliciously prosecute Commissioner Frenchko.
punitive damages.
COUNT VIII
Batterv
Defendant Wix, Defendant Ross, and Defendant Monroe in their Individual
Capacities
165. Defendant Wix had no probable cause to arrest or otherwise lay a finger on
166. Nonetheless, Defendant Wix offensively snatched and pulled Commissioner
Frenchko's chair in an offensive manner while she was sitting in it.
167. Defendants further battered Frenchko when they handcuffed her with no
probable cause and for no reason but to humiliate and intimidate her.
20
168. Defendant Wix made this offensive contact with Commissioner Frenchko's
person intentionally with the purpose to intimidate and punish Commissioner
Frenchko for her criticisms.
169. Defendant Monroe recently offensively grabbed Commissioner Frenchko's
phone while it was attached to her person in order to deprive her of it.
caused her emotional damage.
punitive damages.
COUNT IX
Assault
Defendant Monroe in his Individual Capacity
173. Sheriff Monroe attended a public meeting, and he approached
Commissioner Frenchko to deprive her of her right to record public meetings.
174. Sheriff Monroe intentionally made a move at Commissioner Frencko's
person that placed her in the fear of imminent physical harm.
175. Sheriff Monroe assaulted Commissioner Frenchko maliciously and with the
specific intent to intimidate her for recording him at the public meeting.
176. Sheriff Monroe harmed Commissioner Frenchko.
punitive damages.
21
.•
COUNTX
Destruction of Public Records Under R.C. S 149.351GB)()and R.C. S

149.351(B(2)
All Defendants in All Capacities
179. Defendants communicated with one another in the time leading up to
Commissioner Frenchko's malicious arrest.
180. Defendants communications recorded the activities of Trumbull County,
and they are public records.
181. It does not matter whether Defendants communicated with each other on
their own devices.
182. Defendants have a statutory duty to maintain and not destroy these public
records.
183. Defendants and other staff destroyed these records.
184. Commissioner Frenchko is entitled to statutory damages, attorney fees,
costs, and injunctive relief.
22
COUNTXI
Civil Liabilitv for Criminal Acts under R.C && 2307.60(A)(1) and
2921.12(A)(1) for Destruction of Evidence
All Individual Defendants
186. After Commissioner Frenchko's malicious arrest, Defendant Cantalamessa
deleted his communications with the other Defendants leading up to
Commissioner Frenchko's arrest.
187. These communications constituted evidence related to the criminal
prosecution of Commissioner Frenchko.
188. Upon information and belief, the other Defendants also deleted records of
these communications.
189. Under R.C. &$ 2921.12(A)(1), it is a criminal offense for a person who knows
of a criminal proceeding to "destroy, conceal, or remove any record, document, or
thing, with purpose to impair its value or availability as evidence in such
proceeding or investigation..."
190. Defendants and staff were aware of the proceeding against Frenchko, but
they deleted certain relevant records regardless.
191. The special prosecutor claimed wrongly that these records were not public
records wrongly, but regardless, these records related to a criminal proceeding.
192. These communications were never produced despite a valid request to
obtain them.
193. The destruction of these records damaged Commissioner Frenchko.
23
194. Defendants acted maliciously and in conscious disregard for Commissioner
Frenchko's rights.
195. Defendants have harmed Commissioner Frenchko, and she is entitled to
compensatory damages, injunctive relief, punitive damages, and attorney fees and
costs.
COUNT XII
Civil Liability for Criminal Acts Under R.C. 8& 2307.60(A)(1) and 2921.45
Interference with Civil Rights
All Individual Defendants
197. Defendants have established a pattern and practice of interfering with
Frenchko's civil rights to not suffer wrongful arrest, seizure of her person, seizure
of her property, and her freedom to speak with retaliation.
198. R.C. & 2921.45 demands that no public official use his power to interfere
with the civil rights of others.
199. Defendants have acted maliciously with the conscious purpose of damaging
200. Defendants have harmed Commissioner Frenchko, and she is entitled to
compensatory damages, injunctive relief, punitive damages, and attorney fees and
costs.
24
COUNT XIII
42 U.S.C.81983-Fourth Amendment Seizure of Property
Defendants Monroe, Trumbull County, Trumbull County Sheriff's
Department, and Trumbull County Commissioners
201. Commissioner Frenchko is entitled to damages.
203. Defendant Monroe intentionally seized Commissioner Frenchko's phone
because he wanted to deprive her of her right to record him during a public
meeting.
204. Defendant Monroe did attempt to seize and succeed at seizing the personal
property of Commissioner Frenchko with no probable cause to do so.
205. Sheriff Monroe had no probable cause or reasonable belief that he had the
authority to seize Commissioner Frenchko's cellphone.
206. Defendant Monroe acted maliciously and in conscious disregard for
Frenchko's rights.
207. Defendant Monroe was the final decisionmaker regarding police policies
within Trumbull County.
208. Commissioner Frenchko was damaged, and she is entitled to damages,
attorney fees, costs, punitive damages, injunctive relief, declaratory judgment, and
all other relief available under law and equity.
25
COUNTXIV
Trespass to Chattel and Conversion
Defendant Sheriff Monroe
210. Defendant Monroe intentionally grabbed and exercised control and
dominion over Commissioner Frenchko's phone.
211. Defendant Monroe had no legal right to exercise such control over
Commissioner Frenchko's phone.
212. Commissioner Frenchko is entitled to damages, injunctive relief, attorney
fees, punitive damages, costs, and other available relief.
WHEREFORE, Commissioner Frenchko respectfully requests that this Court finds for
her and awards her the following relief:
a. An order enjoining R.C. &$ 2917.12;
b. An order declaring that R.C. $ 2917.12 is unconstitutional;
c. An order enjoining the County Defendants from continuing to unlawfully
arrest Commissioner Frenchko;
d. An Order declaring that Commissioner Frenchko's arrest was
unconstitutional;
e. Compensatory damages;
f. Nominal damages;
g. Attorney fees;
h. Costs and expenses;
1. Punitive damages against the Defendants in their individual capacities; and
J. All other relief this Court deems proper under law or equity.
26
Respectfully Submitted,
[s/_Matt Miller-Novak
Matthew Miller-Novak (0091402)
Steven C. Davis, Esq. (0065838)
Barron, Peck, Bennie & Schlemmer
3074 Madison Road
Cincinnati, Ohio 45209
(513) 721-1350
[email protected]
[email protected]
/s/ David.J. Betras

David J. Betras (0030575)
6630 Seville Drive
Canfield, Ohio 44406
Telephone: (330) 746-8484
Facsimile: (330) 702-8280
Email: [email protected]
Attorneys for Plaintiff
Through Counsel, Commissioner Niki Frenchko requests a jury for all issues
entitled to be tried in front of a jury.
/s/Matt Miller-Noak
27
VERIFICATION
I verify that the facts contained within this Complaint are true to the best of my
knowledge and belief under penalty of perjury.
Niki Frenchko
firation was signed before me on this / 0

fD '/J:t JfCounty,
N.. OH.
d,y of �0,3, in
28

Frenchko Lawsuit Complaint

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Frenchko Lawsuit Complaint

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Frenchko Lawsuit Complaint

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

NIKI FRENCHKO Case Number:

SARGAENT HAROLD WIX

VERIFIED COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY,

Trumbull County, Trumbull County Commissioners, Trumbull County Sheriff's

First, Fourth, and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution, as

County Commissioner Frenchko because she criticized Sheriff Monroe for

because Plaintiff Frenchko refused to apologize to Sheriff Monroe. In fact, after

expressly telling Commissioner Fenchko that she was disrupting a meeting

Defendants then proceeded to demand an apology. After Commissioner Frenchko

refused to apologize, Defendants arrested her for disrupting a public meeting

based upon a facially unconstitutional statute. Indeed, R.C. S 2917.12 permits a

government to arrest a person for speech that "outrages the sensibilities" of a

discriminates against viewpoints, it is vague, and it violates the overbreadth

specifically seized Commissioner Frenchko's phone and assaulted her in order to

public meeting in a public building.

2. Plaintiff Niki Frenchko ("Frenchko") is a County Commissioner in Trumbull

County, and she resides in Trumbull County, Ohio.

3. Defendant Paul S. Monroe ("Monroe") is the Trumbull County Sheriff, and he is

named here in his individual and official capacities.

and he is named here in his individual capacity, as he is no longer has an official

6. Defendant Sargent Harold Wix ("Wix") is a deputy of the Trumbull County

8. Defendant Trumbull County Sheriffs Department ("Sheriffs Department") is the

law enforcement agency for Trumbull County, Ohio.

9. Defendant Trumbull County Board of Commissioners ("Board") is the political

body of Trumbull County, Ohio.

sued under R.C. $ 301.22.

"Individual Defendants" from time to time.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

claims because they relate to her federal claims.

in Trumbull County, Ohio.

15. Commissioner Frenchko is a Trumbull County Commissioner.

16. Commissioner Frenchko is determined to bring accountability to Trumbull

19. Commissioner Frenchko is critical of Commissioners Cantalamessa and Fuda, and

level certain accusations at each other.

Frenchko suffers her share of criticisms.

herself out as the mother of a previously incarcerated male at a Trumbull County

25. On June 2, 2022, Sheriff Monroe drafted a letter chastising Commissioner

stated that he disagreed with Frenchko's statements.

that a commissioner follows his desired complaint procedure. (Id.)

29.Nonetheless, Defendant Monroe's letter continues to spout dubious authority as

rationale to silence Commissioner Frenchko's speech.

30.According to the letter, Sheriff Monroe claimed that Commissioner Frenchko

County jail ... "

what Sheriff Monroe claims were "false accusations."

Frenchko must follow a complaint procedure he demanded and publicly apologize

Commissioners' meeting on June 7, 2022.

Wix and Defendant Ross.

35. This is abnormal.

anticipating a verbal confrontation with Commissioner Frenchko prior to the

into the record accusing Commissioner Frenchko of besmirching law enforcement

Frenchko publicly apologize.

Commissioners were communicating with Sheriff Monroe.

43.Commissioner Frenchko continued to speak, defend herself, and criticize Sheriff

Monroe's oversight of the County jail.

allegations, Defendant Commissioner Cantalamessa interrupted her and claimed

chieflaw enforcement officer of Trumbull County."

constituted a "disruption" of a public meeting.

Commissioner Frenchko while she was speaking.