Virgil Vaduva speaking with his family during his trial (Photo: Justin King)

The City of Xenia, Ohio made headlines two years ago when they decided to prosecute a local journalist for protesting against the city’s unconstitutional anti-panhandling ordinance.  In early 2015, journalist Virgil Vaduva asked the Xenia City Council to remove the anti-panhandling legislation from their code as it is unconstitutional and it violates the First Amendment rights of citizens, but after refusing to do so, he decided to protest the city’s panhandling ordinance by panhandling in front of the city hall and the police station in Xenia.  He raised about $42 which was donated to a local charity.

He was subsequently ticketed and went all the way through a jury trial leading to his conviction, and a 30 day suspended jail sentence and community service.

He wrote:

By dictating the nature of speech in a public space, the City of Xenia has directly violated the first amendment of the United States Constitution.  Of course, they deny this.  They are now in full damage control mode.  Less than twenty-four hours after I challenged their ordinance, they created a website where they are trying to address poverty in town by explaining why panhandling should be illegal.  Their bureaucrats are desperately trying to control the narrative by saying that they only banned “aggressive panhandling” and not all panhandling.  Of course they never explained why their police still ticketed me for very peaceful panhandling if the ordinance only bans aggressive action.

During the various hearings before the trial, one of the judges involved even stated, “there will be no mentioning of the Constitution here (in this court room).”  The statement drew harsh response from citizens across the country, including Alex Jones’ InfoWars website which discussed some of the details of the case.

But despite the lengthy and expensive legal engagement, Vaduva however won the case after an appeals court ruled that his rights to a fair trial were violated and eventually all charges against him were dropped.

Now, two years after the ordeal took place, a $1.6 million federal lawsuit has been filed against the City of Xenia, its agents and the two police officers involved in enforcing what is clearly an unconstitutional law.

The federal suit, filed in the Southern District of Ohio, names the City of Xenia and several individuals, including all the city council members who conspired to violate constitutional rights and the police officers involved in enforcing the law.  The suit demands relief for over $1.6 million under title 42 U.S. Code § 1983 for conspiring to use the color of  law in order to deprive citizens of their civil rights.

Vaduva claims that he intends to see this lawsuit through to a jury trial, regardless of how much it will cost, all in order to prevent future constitutional violations in the City of Xenia.  Furthermore, he claims that the neighboring cities of Beavercreek and Fairborn have identical anti-panhandling laws on the books, and they will be also targeted for constitutional violations in potential upcoming lawsuits. His hope is that his actions will motivate other activists and citizens in the area to engage in direct action to challenge constitutional violations and abuses of power by local politicians.

by Virgil Vaduva

Xenia is a small city in Ohio, peppered with foot-deep potholes, abandoned buildings with a high unemployment rate and very busy bureaucrats. Just a few months ago, the city’s council decided to spend $6 million on a new “Justice Center” and the cost is expected to balloon well into the $20+ million range. The city is in dire need of infrastructure upgrades, road repairs and sewage system improvements, but a new police station and a new office building for the city’s employees became critical.

But these are not even the worst things about the city of Xenia.  A few years ago, Xenia also decided to ban the practice of panhandling. At the request of the police department and cops who were “too tired” of dealing with homeless people on the street, the city decided to pass an ordinance that banned panhandling virtually anywhere in the city, making it impossible for anyone to ask another individual for financial help, anywhere in the city. In essence, the city has made it illegal for someone to speak with a stranger if the speech involves asking for immediate help.

Many individuals have been fined and prosecuted under this unconstitutional ordinance, raking in thousands of dollars of fines extracted from the most vulnerable and poor people on the streets.

A bit over a year ago I decided to speak to the Xenia City Council and warn them about the fact that their ordinance is unconstitutional. They ignored my warning, and as a result the very next day I decided to take the path of civil disobedience and panhandle in front of the city hall and police station. I raised $41.98 which was donated to United Voluntary Service, a charity helping the homeless in Xenia. I was also ticketed for violating this unconstitutional law, which led to a full-blown jury trial after which I was found guilty, sentenced to 30 days in jail, community service and fines. The jail sentence was suspended on the condition of good behavior for a term of 2 years. During the trial I was not allowed to talk about the constitutionality of the law and my first amendment rights, I was not allowed to even mention the constitution, or the fact that the police in town were behind the passing of this ordinance. A judge literally told me, “there will be no mentioning of the Constitution in this court room.”

After immediately appealing, the appeals court finally reversed my sentence and they sent the case back to the court to be retried. All the charges were dropped a few days ago, and the city’s attorney said they will change the ordinance or get rid of it. Right now it’s unclear what this means.

After about a year and a half, the swift hand of the judicial system finally found me innocent of any wrongdoing spending tens of thousands of dollars of the city’s money and my own money, hundreds of hours going into my defense and substantial effort aimed to win and undo the work of the Xenia bureaucrats. What took them only a few minutes to ratify with the stroke of a pen, caused hundreds, if not thousands of people to be harassed, arrested and fined by their cops. None of the cops and Xenia bureaucrats involved in this will ever be held personally responsible for their decisions, and while I am fortunate enough to afford the legal fees to pursue such a case just for the immoral and unconstitutional aspect of their law, most people cannot do so and rarely, if ever anyone speaks on their behalf or stands up for them.

Now while this may be a win for me personally, the issue is nowhere near close to being resolved. The hundreds of people who have had their first amendment rights violated will need retribution. I am in the process of collecting all the names of the individuals detained or fined under this law and bring this issue to the attention of federal courts.

To make matters worse, the city of Beavercreek, which is next door to Xenia, has an ordinance identical to the one in Xenia, also banning panhandling everywhere within city limits. More and more local bureaucrats decide on a regular basis and in a systematic way to violate the constitutional rights of people in need who are unable to represent themselves in court. Beavercreek is the same city where a police officer shot a black man named John Crawford in a local Walmart for holding a BB gun he picked off a store shelf.

Beavercreek will be our next target for their unconstitutional and illegal practices regarding panhandling, and there will be no rest for the corrupt and immoral politicians and cops running these cities and violating our rights. Yesterday I “panhandled” for charity in Beavercreek and I was given a “warning” from their police and asked not to do it again in the future. I raised $18 dollars which will also be donated to United Voluntary Services to help the homeless in the area.

Officers Hall and Darkow (the second officer involved in the shooting of John Crawford) of Beavecreek PD showed up and threatened, attempted to intimidate me and warned me about standing on a street corner with a cardboard sign that said, “Help the poor.”  In today’s America, this is now a crime.

Officer Darkow was the backup officer involved in the shooting and killing of John Crawford in a Beavercreek Walmart. He is currently being sued by the Crawford family.

Officer hall attempting to give me a written warning about panhandling in the city of Beavercreek and threatening me with arrest if I continue to peacefully raise money for charity

Officer hall attempting to give me a written warning about panhandling in the city of Beavercreek and threatening me with arrest if I continue to peacefully raise money for charity

The officers refused to answer questions about the constitutionality of the law and why they are violating their oaths to the Constitution by enforcing a law targeting Americans’ first amendment rights.

The same individuals who have sworn an oath to obey and protect the Constitution are actively using their roles to undermine the very document and rights they were entrusted to protect.

If you have been one of the hundreds of people harassed, arrested or fined by the Xenia and Beavercreek police for panhandling, please contact me as soon as possible at [email protected] so I can help you out. I want to hear your story.

Virgil Vaduva is a Libertarian security professional, journalist, photographer and overall liberty freak. He spent most of his life in Communist Romania and participated in the 1989 street protests which led to the collapse of the Ceausescu regime. He can be reached at vvaduva at truthvoice.com.

Cities trying to limit panhandling in downtowns and tourist areas are facing a new legal hurdle because of a recent Supreme Court ruling that seemingly has nothing to do with asking for money.

Federal judges in at least three states have cited a June ruling by the high court on the size of church signs as a reason for overturning anti-panhandling laws or sending cases disputing those laws back to lower courts for review. One of those cases — in the western Colorado city of Grand Junction — has spurred Colorado communities including Denver and Boulder to suspend or change their laws restricting where and when people can panhandle.

The reason is something called content discrimination. The Supreme Court ruled that the town of Gilbert, Arizona, did not have the right to limit the size of signs put up to direct worshippers to services at a small church because the town didn’t set the same limits for real estate or political signs. The same issue has been raised in lawsuits filed by the American Civil Liberties Union and other groups challenging anti-panhandling laws.

U.S. District Judge Christine Arguello ruled on Sept. 30 that it was unconstitutional for Grand Junction to bar people from asking for money after dark and near bus stops and restaurant patios because they singled out a kind of speech — asking for money — for special treatment without a compelling reason.

Arguello had concluded earlier in the case brought by the state ACLU that the law was discriminatory but said the Supreme Court church signs ruling made it clear that laws that limit speech on broad topics, not just particular viewpoints, also amount to content discrimination. She let stand parts of the law that prohibit panhandlers from threatening people.

After the Grand Junction ruling, Boulder quickly got rid of panhandling restrictions along its pedestrian mall, Longmont suspended its enforcement of panhandling laws and the Denver City Council is considering removing its restrictions on when and where panhandlers can solicit money but plans to keeping its ban on threatening behavior. Colorado Springs also suspended portions of its law at the urging of the ACLU before the Grand Junction ruling.

Appeals courts also have sent challenges to anti-panhandling laws in Worcester, Massachusetts, and Springfield, Illinois, back to lower courts to reconsider them in light of the Supreme Court’s ruling. Decisions on both are still pending.

The debate over panhandling laws comes at a time when more cities have sought to restrict where people can ask for money. The National Law Center on Homelessness & Poverty says 76 percent of cities banned panhandling in some locations in 2014, a 20 percent increase since 2011. Many cities say the laws are meant not to discourage giving to people in need but to protect residents and help keep their communities safe.

Mark Silverstein, legal director of the ACLU of Colorado, thinks most panhandling laws nationally have been written so broadly that many of them also will have to be changed because of the ruling. His lawyers plan to tell cities in Colorado about the changes they think are needed.

“The government can’t pass a law to ban all speech that’s annoying or irritating,” he said.

Some constitutional experts think the sign ruling also could have implications beyond panhandling including government regulation of advertising, securities and communications.

While some see that as a good thing for free speech, others, like Yale Law School Dean Robert Post, see potential problems. He said the ruling was written so broadly that it applies to commercial speech and could be used, for example, to try to block the Federal Trade Commission’s sanctions against misleading advertisements.

In Worcester, city officials plan to fight to keep limits banning panhandling near bus stops and ATMs as well as standing in medians for any reasons.

“We see it (panhandling restrictions) as one important piece of the puzzle of dealing with the opioid crisis in the country,” city solicitor David Moore said.

Springfield also doesn’t plan to give up on its restrictions that bar going up to people and directly asking for money in the city’s historic downtown, where tourists flock to see Abraham Lincoln’s house. Panhandlers are still allowed to hold signs soliciting donations, city corporation counsel Jim Zerkle said. The city has filed arguments in favor of keeping the law.

In Denver, it’s not clear how much of a difference the proposed changes will make on the street. The city says it’s averaged about 300 panhandling citations a year since its law took effect in 2000 and roughly two-thirds of those violations involved aggressive behavior, rather than violating the time and place limits it’s considering scrapping.

On a recent day, William Jones, 69, was one of several panhandlers set up along the city’s 16th Street Pedestrian Mall not far from one of the parking meters the city installed to raise money for the homeless and discourage panhandling.

Jones, a Navy veteran who has worked breaking horses, as a restaurant cook and in construction, said he does not care for the aggressive style. He sat on his walker with a sign, saying good morning people and waved back at a passing bus driver and an outreach worker from a homeless shelter.

“I don’t make a lot of money, but I make a lot of friends,” he said.

Associated Press

by Virgil Vaduva

XENIA, OHIO — A few days ago I chose to violate a local Xenia City ordinance which I consider to be immoral, unethical and unconstitutional.  I was not aware that Xenia passed an ordinance banning panhandling until I met a woman who was released from the local jail.  When she was released she had no cash, no phone, no car and nobody to help her out.  As a result she did what would come natural to most human beings: she asked another person for help.

Virgil Vaduva was ticketed for panhandling, which is a 4th degree misdemeanor and carries a 30 day jail sentence under the current Xenia, OH ordinance

Her verbalizing the need for help to another person instantly caused her to become a criminal.  Under Xenia ordinance 13-31, one may not ask another person for financial assistance within 20 feet of a public sidewalk or a business or public building doorway.  This more or less includes over 90% of the area of the city, putting those in need in an impossible situation.  Worse, this ordinance criminalized speech; the action of uttering certain words in a public space is now a 4^th degree misdemeanor and can land someone in jail for up to 30 days.

This woman was literally cornered in a local store by two Xenia police officers who were peppering her with questions and threatening her with arrest.  She was desperate and frustrated (as anyone in that situation would be) and was about to get arrested.  Fortunately I gave her a ride to the bus hub in Dayton.  I offered her cash and food and she turned both down because someone else already gave her a few dollars for a bus ride.  Her honesty broke my heart.  She could have easily taken $20 from me but she still refused.  She could have easily ended up back in a jail cell simply because she uttered some words to a stranger who instead of saying “no, I don’t want to help you” chose to call armed men to deal with her.

Once I was made aware of the existence of this ordinance I made the decision to put my actions where my words are.  I wired myself with a camera, a sign stating “Help the Poor, Need $ and Food” and spent about an hour and a half in front of the Xenia City Hall asking random stranger walking by for cash.  Most people were very kind and helpful.  Many stopped to talk to me and pointed me to Joshua Tree and a local Red Cross shelter.  A social worked stopped by to offer me popcorn and kindly offered me a list of resources that would help; she was not aware that panhandling was illegal either.  One Xenia city employee walked by and responded to my question for cash with a rude “Please leave me alone!”   Another employee came out and gave me cash.  There was a wide range of responses from all kinds of people.

Panhandling in Xenia, Ohio from Greene County Herald on Vimeo.

It was a humbling experience to stand in the cold wind with a cardboard sign and beg people for money.  I never harassed anyone, assaulted anyone or otherwise aggressively approached another person.  All I did was utter words to others who walked by.  Because of this, a Xenia Police captain came out and gave me a citation for violating ordinance 13-31.  In essence I received a ticket for a 4^th degree misdemeanor simply for speaking certain words in a public space.  To demonstrate the absurdity of this ordinance I even clarified to both police and those who gave me cash that it would all be donated to charity.  Incredibly, it did not matter and this immoral law was still enforced.

The hidden video I put together of the panhandling went viral; it has been seen by thousands and thousands of people all over the world.  Xenia is yet again the butt of jokes, and not because city bureaucrats are telling citizens what colors to paint their homes, or because a local teenager decided to take a bath in the Burger King sink.  Xenia is now the butt of jokes because they are indirectly making a claim of ownership over anyone who stands or walks on a public sidewalk.

How else could one explain the insistence of the city council to dictate what words one can speak in public?  Or how else could they dictate what words to write on a sign that one holds in his hands in a public space?  Public servants do not have the authority to do such things; masters however do.  And that is exactly how these Xenia politicians behave, like masters who have made a claim of ownership over one’s body.

By dictating the nature of speech in a public space, the City of Xenia has directly violated the first amendment of the United States Constitution.  Of course, they deny this.  They are now in full damage control mode.  Less than twenty-four hours after I challenged their ordinance, they created a website where they are trying to address poverty in town by explaining why panhandling should be illegal.  Their bureaucrats are desperately trying to control the narrative by saying that they only banned “aggressive panhandling” and not all panhandling.  Of course they never explained why their police still ticketed me for very peaceful panhandling if the ordinance only bans aggressive action.

If all this is not bad enough, the Xenia prosecutor, Ronald C. Lewis, was charged with tax fraud less just a few months ago.  He claimed that he simply forgot to pay taxes on income he made on the side; he called it “an honest mistake.”  No worries though, the municipal judge let him off the hook.  In a lame attempt to erase history and obvious criminal activity he even ordered that all documentation of the charges be stricken from the record.  This will be the guy prosecuting me for peacefully standing on a public sidewalk; yes, a criminal prosecuting a peaceful activist.

You see how easy it is for those in power to get away with serious crimes?  It is almost like magic.  Those of us who do not wear black robes and blue uniforms are often looked at as property by those in power.  Judges, politicians and police are in essence running this new plantation where the poor and the disenfranchised are barely allowed to exist.

Our only role is to provide funds through taxation so that these highly corrupt machinations of governments can continue to provide salaries and retirement funds for those who have careers in government.  Little else matters.

Regardless of what your role in government is, it is time for you to realize that in essence you are simply just a parasite on the back of those of us who actually produce tangible value in a real marketplace.  Government bureaucrats do not produce anything.  They accept tax dollars with their left hand, take a certain amount off the top to pay their own salaries and retirement funds and then pass what remains to corporations that build roads, take out the trash and bring electricity to our homes.  They call this “public servitude.”  It is much like panhandling.  Just a lot more dishonest; a panhandler is honest about why he is asking for cash.  Government employees mostly lie about why the money is needed.

If you want to voice your opinion, contact the Xenia prosecutor and law director Ronald Lewis and ask him to stop enforcing his unconstitutional ordinance and drop the charges against me: 1-937-376-7303