IN THE GREENE COUNTY COMMON PLEAS COURTXENIA, OHIOCIVIL DIVISIONXXXXXXXXX ) Case No.XXXXXXXXX )XXXXXXXXX )) Judge:Plaintiff, )v. ))City of Xenia )101 N. Detroit St. )

COMPLAINT

Xenia, OH 45385 ))Xenia City Council )101 N. Detroit St. )Xenia, OH 45385 ))Xenia City Manager )101 N. Detroit St. )Xenia, OH 45385 ))Defendants. )) Now comes Plaintiff X for his cause of action against City of Xenia, Xenia City Counciland Xenia City Manager, collectively “Defendants,” alleges and says:Factual allegations1.

The City of Xenia is an Ohio municipal corporation as classified by the OhioState Constitution, Article XVIII, Section 1 and is bound by general and specific provisions set forth in Title VII of the Ohio Revised Code.

Defendants are not Political Action Committees, campaign committees, politicalcontributing entities, political parties, or legislative campaign funds registeredwith the Greene County Board of elections, and have not completed form 30-D,“Designation of Treasurer” as prescribed by the Ohio Secretary of State on07/2005.3.

Defendants are actively involved in campaigning, marketing, publishing, printingindividually and through proxies, for the purpose of passing a proposed ballot taxlevy issue, known as Issue 7.4.

Pursuant to Ohio Administrative Code Title 111, a ballot or levy initiative issubject to regulations similar to an individual candidate or party representative.5.

Plaintiff is a resident of the City of Xenia, is subject to and directly affected bycurrent taxing authority, income tax levy and city management practices andmethodologies created and enforced by the Defendants.6.

On or about July 23, 2009, staff employed by the Defendants unveiled adocument titled “

Securing Xenia’s Future

,” marked “Exhibit A,” which informedthe public that “

the budget is balanced and the city is in good financial standing

.”7.

On or about August 17, 2009, Defendants issued a press release, marked “ExhibitB,” announcing that they will “

approach the community with a request for additional tax funding early next year

.”8.

On or about October 28, 2009, Defendants issued a press release, marked “ExhibitC,” in which it informed the public that Wright State University has been retainedin order to conduct a phone survey, which would assist Defendants with “

setting acourse for Xenia’s future

.”

During the month of December 2009, Wright State University released the resultsof the aforementioned survey in a document titled “

Citizen Perception Survey

,”marked “Exhibit D.”10.

The aforementioned Wright State University survey included questions related totaxation, such as “

which types of ballot initiatives they would support in the futureif the city were to seek additional funding?

”11.

The aforementioned Wright State University Survey contained biased questions(As referenced below in rhetorical paragraph 15).12.

Defendants had a hidden agenda and used the aforementioned “

Citizen PerceptionSurvey

” as a means to illegally bypass Ohio and Federal election law and usetaxpayer funds to assess, align and create an election strategy for facilitating the passing of a tax levy and ballot initiative during the May 4, 2010 election.13.

On or about January 7, 2010, Defendants held a special session meeting aimed atdiscussing a “potential levy.” Meeting minutes are attached and marked “ExhibitE.”14.

That during the aforementioned meeting held on January 7, 2010, CouncilmanLouderback said,

“… to go from 1.75 to 2.25 percent income tax is not out of thequestion; he felt people are tired of paying property taxes

and the surveyindicates that

. An income tax is a better way to go [we] have

to pay attention towhat the survey

said

”15.

That during the aforementioned meeting held on January 7, 2010, CouncilwomanFelton said,

“…she was called to take the survey, and she felt

the questions werevery biased

”