December 10, 2025 • 16 mins
Will your money, not taxes, be used to fund pro football stadiums? Jeff Crossman is from the Dann Law Firm, and joins Scott to discuss his lawsuit against the state of Ohio for trying to use the unclaimed funds pool to fund public stadiums.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
Do you want to be an American idiot flooding back on
seven hundred WW Man, We've got everything going on all
at the same time. We'll begin with this story. This morning,
federal judge has allowed Ohio, the Buckeye State, to begin
transferring unclaimed funds starting first the year of finance at
new Brown Stadium and all of these millions, if not
(00:21):
hundreds of millions, and now we're into the billions of
dollars when it comes to unclaimed funds at Ohio. There's
a lawsuit that was threatened by Mark dan and that
has now come to fruition. It's going to challenge this
uses or. Judge denied a preliminary injunction. It said Ohio's
really don't face a reparable harm since they can still
claim their money through twenty thirty six. However, he also
(00:42):
rejected the state's motion to dismiss this case entirely. So
the judge said, hey, it's it's up to me to
determine if the loss constitutional. He's not here to decide
if it's a good idea or not. And he may
have a rule land in this as early as Tuesday
on whether this preliminary injunction will be granted on this
who brought the case forward along with Mark dan As
Jeff Crossman of the Dan Law Firm and Cleveland, he's
lead council. Jeff, welcome, How are you good?
Speaker 2 (01:04):
How are you today?
Speaker 1 (01:05):
I'm doing fine. A lot to unpack here as the
state tries to move like two billion dollars up to
two billion on claim funds into an account of finance, stadiums,
cultural projects, stuff like that six hundred million for the Browns, Cincinnati,
Columbus and others are probably gonna get some but let's
start here. The judge denied your request for the injunction,
but allow the case to move forward. So what's the
(01:25):
strategy here for you moving forward?
Speaker 2 (01:27):
Well, the case is the court noted the case does
have merit, so the case will continue and we ultimately
will hope to prevail in this case because we think
our constitutional arguments are pretty strong here. It's fundamental to
what we all understand then, what the constitution protects, which
is your private property right and gives you the opportunity
(01:48):
to object when the state tries to take your property,
which is not happening here because the state doesn't give
anybody notice that they're seeing people's property putting it in
a what was supposed to be a lost and found account,
but now, as it turned down, out is going to
be used as a slush fund to give out money
to various PEP projects of the legislature.
Speaker 1 (02:06):
Okay, so we'll unpack this a little bit here too.
Let's start with achievement laws. Obviously there are people who
will not claim funds despite public notices. Will get to
that element in just a second, but typically a state
and I think, oh hi, it's like ten years. Basically,
if you don't claim something in ten years, it reverts
back to the state because the agent assume you don't
care or you're dead. Is that the biggest legal hurdle
(02:27):
you got to jump over.
Speaker 2 (02:29):
There's a lot of challenges to what the state is
doing here. First, a lot of people don't know that
their property is being seized, and there's really no legitimate
or practical way to protect yourself. So every bank account
that you own, whether it's a savings account or money
market account, or a life insurance policy or even a
safe DEPOSITI bok with some personal belongings that may not
have economic value but might have personal value to you.
(02:52):
You can't protect yourself from the state seizing that property,
liquidating the property, and then you know, turning it over
to this slush fund. And we had a gentleman testify
the other day, a gentleman from Germany who had this
very experience happened him. His entire retirement account, which was
held at Charles Schwab, was confiscated by the State of California,
liquidated without his knowledge, and he ultimately received only a
(03:15):
fraction of what he was owned.
Speaker 1 (03:17):
But there's a justification here for dormant money. I mean,
if it sits unclaimed for a decade, that suggests owners
have forgotten it, moved without affording their information, died without
their errors knowing about it, which is unfortunate for sure.
But do do you just suggest that this money sits
there in perpetuity.
Speaker 2 (03:33):
No. I think what the High Supreme Court has been
clear about is unclaimed funds doesn't mean abandoned property. A
High Supreme Court and a unanimous decision when when does
that happen? Often? Right, in a unanimous decision not that
long ago said that the unclaim funds is not abandoned.
People simply don't know about it. And then the state
admitted on the stand repeatedly, over and over again. They
(03:54):
do not send any notice to anybody. So they're taking
people's property and liquidating it without their knowledge. So you
can't abandon something you don't have notice, gotcha.
Speaker 1 (04:04):
On the other hand, we know, I mean, this is
probably one of the few things they still do, Jeff
is advertisements and newspapers where there's court decisions that you
have to publicly notify people, So you put an ad
in all the newspaper in each of the eighty eight counties. That's,
you know, technologically back in the day that especially. I
know't ibody still do that or not. You could probably
tell me better. But you know, we have social media,
we have public service campaigns. I mean, isn't there a
(04:26):
duty on the part of the person who holds an
account or an adult to be aware of what the
law is regarding this and therefore be informed. I mean,
how far should the state go to make sure someone
is dead or incapacitated or simply doesn't care. You can
only do so much. And I guess when I look
at public notices and newspapers that seems to satisfy the courts.
Why not the sun?
Speaker 2 (04:48):
Well, two things there one. The US Supreme Court has
been repeatedly in multiple cases very clear it is the
state's duty, not the individual duty. It is the state's duty.
If they want to take your property, find them. The
other real problem here is that the data is bad,
and we had plenty of people testify, even the state
testified that the data is not valid. In a lot
(05:11):
of cases, isn'tvalid. They don't have zip code, they don't
have correct addresses. There's people in foreign countries and other
states of the United States, Wisconsin, New York, all over
the country that publication in Tyhoga County or Hamilton County
or Franklin County doesn't reach those folks. So they have
no notice at all that your property has been seized
by the state of Ohio. The property is going to
be liquidated and handed over.
Speaker 1 (05:33):
Okay, what the level of notification you think is constitutionally
required here?
Speaker 2 (05:36):
Then, well, the Supreme Court has been very clear on
that too. It has to be something that's calculated to
reach that person. So if your data is bad and
you're not sending out any notice whatsoever, I can pretty
safely say that there's no notice whatsoever.
Speaker 1 (05:49):
Yeah, I mean, you have what potentially thirty five thousand
claimants living abroad alone would never see those notices. In
this day and age where you can do your work
from anywhere around the world for that matter, that's lematic.
They'd have to change that.
Speaker 2 (06:02):
And I'll say this, there are plenty of municipalities and
fire departments and all kinds of local governments across the
state of Ohio. They have money's and non claimed fund.
You can't tell me the State of Ohio doesn't know
where the city of Cleveland, City Cincinnati is physically located,
where send the checks. They can do that. They can
send them notice and tell them that the property is
about to be liquidated.
Speaker 1 (06:20):
And we're not doing that right now. Just to be clear,
they do nothing except here's the website. Find it for yourself.
Speaker 2 (06:27):
Correct, gotcha?
Speaker 1 (06:28):
Gotcha? If you could point to other I guess precedent.
And when it comes to notifying people, I mean I
get notifications all the time for them. While things like
class action lawsuits, I get a postcard that says you
want to be part of this class et cetera. Somehow
they can find me there. But the state can in
this case.
Speaker 2 (06:44):
Believe me, if the state and if you owe taxes
to the State of Ohio. They would trying to. I
can't imagine why in this case where they owe you money,
they're not looking for you.
Speaker 1 (06:52):
Right right? He is Jeff Crossman, he is lead counsel
in this case against the State of Ohio, the unclaimed
funds case. It's going to fund all the public Stadia
Cleveland first with three hundred million or six hundred million.
I guess I should say out of this up to
two billion dollars unclaimed funds. So if you have an
unclaimed a case, or you have unclaimed funds, whether it's
a dollar or a million dollars, you have to go
(07:14):
to the state website to check your uncamp claim funds
and find them for yourself, as opposed to the state
doing due diligence to try and find you. That's the
crux of the argument he's making. In the judge of
federal judges ruled that the case can move forward with
some guardrails in place. There it's I think it was you,
or it was Mark dan or I had honi you
compared it to unclaimed funds to a dog shelters website.
(07:38):
You know, I got I think just within the last
year I went on and got like, because of this case,
actually I think about four hundred dollars on claim funds
I founded or my name and my brother did the same.
But the website itself, I mean I didn't have a
problem navigating, but you said, this is like the website
itself is terrible, and if it's bad, then it causes
people to maybe not look for their funds.
Speaker 2 (08:01):
The website is pretty rudimentary. We had a film a
tep fight the other day who handles e commerce for
BMW internationally, and you know, he's got an IT expert,
and he said, there's some fundamental flaws and the way
the database captures data, source data and spits it back
to you. One of the things we identified originally was
(08:21):
one of the planets in the case. His name is
pretty common. It's Todd Butler. If you put that name
into the database, it fits back a thousand and it
cuts off there. There might be ten thousand Todd Butler's
in there. You'll never know whether or not those other
ones are in there because it stops giving you results
after number one thousand. Then State admitted that the other day.
So there's just really no way to know what property
(08:42):
you truly have in that whole front. There's no way
to search it on.
Speaker 1 (08:45):
Imagine a government website or something the government not working properly. Jeff,
I'm shocked.
Speaker 2 (08:51):
Well, we're here to try to correct the process that
was the purpose of the laws. We're not anti stadium construction.
We're not anti Cleveland Browns were all sports antire in
dan law. But we do think that the government should
act constitutionally, and we do think that they should employe
some better safeguards to make sure people's rights are protected.
Speaker 1 (09:09):
Yeah, and I think it's important Fasta too. This is
not about going after the Cleveland Browns with the fund.
I mean, look at it this way. So I think
someone made the accusation. This is about opposing public funding
for stadiums and billionaire stadiums rather than property rights. But
would you be in the same position if it were
funding schools, hospital something all those on well unclaimed funds.
Speaker 2 (09:31):
The way they're doing it is unconstitutional, So you know
our position is constitutionally this doesn't make any sense if
it was a public purpose, a true public purpose like
building a school or building a fire station, for example,
that has a much more, much stronger justification than in
this case because it is money being used, it's a
taking for a non public purpose. Is there there is
(09:53):
a problem there too, Jeff?
Speaker 1 (09:54):
Is there a way you'd be satisfied? I mean, are
you posed to using unclan funds for a public person
purposes generally or is it problematic just the stadium funding
or is there a way to you, for you and
your clients or and your planing to those who brought
the suit here for them to be satisfied.
Speaker 2 (10:09):
Well, there are two constitutional issues here. One is the
purpose of its taking, which you've identified, and secondly is
the notice in the new process we need to have
an aa public purpose and be they have to improve
the new process safeguards here they don't exist right now.
Speaker 1 (10:24):
Again, Jeff Crossman's here from the Dan Law firm. He's
the lead counsel in this case brought against the State
of Ohio, the unclaimed funds case that we've talked about
here that would fund stadiums across Ohio. The only problem
is it's coming out of unclaimed funds and after ten
years that money would revert back to the state. And
he's saying there's just not enough notification in place, safeguards
in place, to make sure that your whole and that
(10:46):
you get to get your money simply because the state
would rather you not. There's a lot of entities would
do that too. Right now, the way the lost hands,
if money left dormant for ten plus years is presumed
to abandon. I guess the question is should the state
be able to redirec act unclaimed funds? And we're talking
about what makes that constitutionally acceptable? This morning on the show,
(11:06):
where do you think this goes in the next Well,
now I think too, didn't I say Tuesday? I believe
it's a day a judge should make a decision. Here
you confidence is going to move forward.
Speaker 2 (11:15):
The judge made a decision on the Pulmerian junction. Now
we're moving forward on the case and we're going to
decide whether we follow an appeal. And And by the way,
I should note that when the state amended the statute,
it automatically created a conflict of interest between the stat
and yourself. You know, think about say, you know your
investment account at Cheryl Schwab, if Charles Schwab now had
an incentive not to tell you how much money was
(11:36):
in the account or or what they were doing with
the money and that if you don't contact them in
a certain amount of time, they can just take your money.
We would all fundamentally agree that that's what we would
call indezzlement. And essentially what's going on here the state
now has a conflict of interest. They don't have any
incentive to tell you that the money is there in
the ways about protecting yourself. So, uh, it's a real problem.
Speaker 1 (12:00):
Yeah, it seems to be. You know, you laid out
a very very good, dynamic case as to why the
court should side with you and the plaintiffs in this
case simply because the lack of notification in the website
is terrible. My last name Sloan, not terribly uncommon, but
I could see if your last name is Smith or something.
Then if I'm not able to see and find exactly
the you know, Jeff Smith that's on there, and there's
(12:21):
probably thousands in the state of Ohio, that's problematic. I mean,
even if I want to find my money and that's
my common name, it's going to be difficult to do so,
and that's part of this lawsuit and rightly, so that's
exactly right, all right, So timeline here is now Judges
hearing this is probably going to move forward in this case.
Do you think the state eventually settles with this? Are
(12:43):
you looking for a settlement or just an outright I mean,
what what what happens to the stadium funding model if
you win?
Speaker 2 (12:50):
Well, that's an open question. I mean that was That's
why we argued that it was stafer to keep the
money where it is until we litigate the merits of
the case. And I think at the end of the day,
we're still optimistic that we're going to prevail here. And
if that's the case, then there's money. This half a
billion dollars or more has left the State of Ohio's coffers.
It's going to be taxpayers that have to put back
that money.
Speaker 1 (13:10):
Yeah, Jeff, all the best. Thanks for jepping on this
morn now. You're extremely busy, but I appreciate taking time
out to chat here. Jeff Crossmo, the Dan Law firm,
lead counsel in this case, All the best, You have
a great dable chat. Again, Thanks again, man, I appreciate you.
I've got some time here maybe to talk about this.
So I don't know if you've checked the Unclaimed fun site.
I have, and as I said, found like four hundred
bucks or something like that. I thought it was pretty
(13:32):
easy process myself on my name. Okay, this is me here, Boom.
But I have a common but not uncommon name. If
you have a very common name, I don't know if
you found it extremely difficult to navigate this side or not.
As I said, I didn't, but your results may vary.
Speaker 2 (13:50):
I don't know.
Speaker 1 (13:51):
I'm kind of torn on this, but I tend to
lean in this one towards more towards the state, and
not that I want people to lose their money, but
don't know after ten years, seems to me, with all
of the information out there, you know, check all you
gotta do is check this website. Now, it seems to
me that that is on you. Ten years, you don't
(14:11):
know that that money's out there. How far? How far
should the state go to try and get that money
back to you?
Speaker 2 (14:19):
Now?
Speaker 1 (14:20):
I think two things here are important that the state
would have to simply notify you somehow, send you a
postcard or whatever it might be, to a reasonable attempt
to contact you. I mean, I get contacted by people
I don't want contact contacting me all the time. They
can find me, but the state can't that's problematic, and
as he said, if you have a common name, it's
(14:41):
difficult to navigate the website. That strike too. But I
think if the state we're to change those two elements,
that to me seems like it would satisfy the claim
that they're trying to hold on the money. And you
can see that right, there's incentive for the state to
hold your cash in an unclaimed account because now it's
(15:02):
going to go to fund pet projects that lawmakers will
definitely line up to try and get that quote unquote
free money, not free, but quote unquote free money in
order to well build something nice to get votes. I'm
the guy who got the new Cleveland Stadium. I'm the
one who got pay Course Stadium. I'm the one that
got GABP made whole again and remodeled. So there's tremendous
(15:26):
incentive for the state here. But we'll get your thoughts
into the unclaimed funds thing. And like I said, I
tend to look at and go all right, I think
you fix a website and make a concerned effort, do
your due diligence and trying to locate someone with those funds,
then that's probably the best you can do. Outside of
the public notices in the website. Your Thoughts five one, three, seven, four,
nine hundred, The Big One Talkback VI, the iHeartRadio app.
(15:49):
You can get me there if you're listening to the
stream through your phone. We'll get do that. We'll get news.
We've got weather moving in all sorts of moving parts
this morning here on the Scoutslan Show on seven hundred
well W
Do you want to be an American idiot flooding back on
seven hundred WW Man, We've got everything going on all
at the same time. We'll begin with this story. This morning,
federal judge has allowed Ohio, the Buckeye State, to begin
transferring unclaimed funds starting first the year of finance at
new Brown Stadium and all of these millions, if not
(00:21):
hundreds of millions, and now we're into the billions of
dollars when it comes to unclaimed funds at Ohio. There's
a lawsuit that was threatened by Mark dan and that
has now come to fruition. It's going to challenge this
uses or. Judge denied a preliminary injunction. It said Ohio's
really don't face a reparable harm since they can still
claim their money through twenty thirty six. However, he also
(00:42):
rejected the state's motion to dismiss this case entirely. So
the judge said, hey, it's it's up to me to
determine if the loss constitutional. He's not here to decide
if it's a good idea or not. And he may
have a rule land in this as early as Tuesday
on whether this preliminary injunction will be granted on this
who brought the case forward along with Mark dan As
Jeff Crossman of the Dan Law Firm and Cleveland, he's
lead council. Jeff, welcome, How are you good?
Speaker 2 (01:04):
How are you today?
Speaker 1 (01:05):
I'm doing fine. A lot to unpack here as the
state tries to move like two billion dollars up to
two billion on claim funds into an account of finance, stadiums,
cultural projects, stuff like that six hundred million for the Browns, Cincinnati,
Columbus and others are probably gonna get some but let's
start here. The judge denied your request for the injunction,
but allow the case to move forward. So what's the
(01:25):
strategy here for you moving forward?
Speaker 2 (01:27):
Well, the case is the court noted the case does
have merit, so the case will continue and we ultimately
will hope to prevail in this case because we think
our constitutional arguments are pretty strong here. It's fundamental to
what we all understand then, what the constitution protects, which
is your private property right and gives you the opportunity
(01:48):
to object when the state tries to take your property,
which is not happening here because the state doesn't give
anybody notice that they're seeing people's property putting it in
a what was supposed to be a lost and found account,
but now, as it turned down, out is going to
be used as a slush fund to give out money
to various PEP projects of the legislature.
Speaker 1 (02:06):
Okay, so we'll unpack this a little bit here too.
Let's start with achievement laws. Obviously there are people who
will not claim funds despite public notices. Will get to
that element in just a second, but typically a state
and I think, oh hi, it's like ten years. Basically,
if you don't claim something in ten years, it reverts
back to the state because the agent assume you don't
care or you're dead. Is that the biggest legal hurdle
(02:27):
you got to jump over.
Speaker 2 (02:29):
There's a lot of challenges to what the state is
doing here. First, a lot of people don't know that
their property is being seized, and there's really no legitimate
or practical way to protect yourself. So every bank account
that you own, whether it's a savings account or money
market account, or a life insurance policy or even a
safe DEPOSITI bok with some personal belongings that may not
have economic value but might have personal value to you.
(02:52):
You can't protect yourself from the state seizing that property,
liquidating the property, and then you know, turning it over
to this slush fund. And we had a gentleman testify
the other day, a gentleman from Germany who had this
very experience happened him. His entire retirement account, which was
held at Charles Schwab, was confiscated by the State of California,
liquidated without his knowledge, and he ultimately received only a
(03:15):
fraction of what he was owned.
Speaker 1 (03:17):
But there's a justification here for dormant money. I mean,
if it sits unclaimed for a decade, that suggests owners
have forgotten it, moved without affording their information, died without
their errors knowing about it, which is unfortunate for sure.
But do do you just suggest that this money sits
there in perpetuity.
Speaker 2 (03:33):
No. I think what the High Supreme Court has been
clear about is unclaimed funds doesn't mean abandoned property. A
High Supreme Court and a unanimous decision when when does
that happen? Often? Right, in a unanimous decision not that
long ago said that the unclaim funds is not abandoned.
People simply don't know about it. And then the state
admitted on the stand repeatedly, over and over again. They
(03:54):
do not send any notice to anybody. So they're taking
people's property and liquidating it without their knowledge. So you
can't abandon something you don't have notice, gotcha.
Speaker 1 (04:04):
On the other hand, we know, I mean, this is
probably one of the few things they still do, Jeff
is advertisements and newspapers where there's court decisions that you
have to publicly notify people, So you put an ad
in all the newspaper in each of the eighty eight counties. That's,
you know, technologically back in the day that especially. I
know't ibody still do that or not. You could probably
tell me better. But you know, we have social media,
we have public service campaigns. I mean, isn't there a
(04:26):
duty on the part of the person who holds an
account or an adult to be aware of what the
law is regarding this and therefore be informed. I mean,
how far should the state go to make sure someone
is dead or incapacitated or simply doesn't care. You can
only do so much. And I guess when I look
at public notices and newspapers that seems to satisfy the courts.
Why not the sun?
Speaker 2 (04:48):
Well, two things there one. The US Supreme Court has
been repeatedly in multiple cases very clear it is the
state's duty, not the individual duty. It is the state's duty.
If they want to take your property, find them. The
other real problem here is that the data is bad,
and we had plenty of people testify, even the state
testified that the data is not valid. In a lot
(05:11):
of cases, isn'tvalid. They don't have zip code, they don't
have correct addresses. There's people in foreign countries and other
states of the United States, Wisconsin, New York, all over
the country that publication in Tyhoga County or Hamilton County
or Franklin County doesn't reach those folks. So they have
no notice at all that your property has been seized
by the state of Ohio. The property is going to
be liquidated and handed over.
Speaker 1 (05:33):
Okay, what the level of notification you think is constitutionally
required here?
Speaker 2 (05:36):
Then, well, the Supreme Court has been very clear on
that too. It has to be something that's calculated to
reach that person. So if your data is bad and
you're not sending out any notice whatsoever, I can pretty
safely say that there's no notice whatsoever.
Speaker 1 (05:49):
Yeah, I mean, you have what potentially thirty five thousand
claimants living abroad alone would never see those notices. In
this day and age where you can do your work
from anywhere around the world for that matter, that's lematic.
They'd have to change that.
Speaker 2 (06:02):
And I'll say this, there are plenty of municipalities and
fire departments and all kinds of local governments across the
state of Ohio. They have money's and non claimed fund.
You can't tell me the State of Ohio doesn't know
where the city of Cleveland, City Cincinnati is physically located,
where send the checks. They can do that. They can
send them notice and tell them that the property is
about to be liquidated.
Speaker 1 (06:20):
And we're not doing that right now. Just to be clear,
they do nothing except here's the website. Find it for yourself.
Speaker 2 (06:27):
Correct, gotcha?
Speaker 1 (06:28):
Gotcha? If you could point to other I guess precedent.
And when it comes to notifying people, I mean I
get notifications all the time for them. While things like
class action lawsuits, I get a postcard that says you
want to be part of this class et cetera. Somehow
they can find me there. But the state can in
this case.
Speaker 2 (06:44):
Believe me, if the state and if you owe taxes
to the State of Ohio. They would trying to. I
can't imagine why in this case where they owe you money,
they're not looking for you.
Speaker 1 (06:52):
Right right? He is Jeff Crossman, he is lead counsel
in this case against the State of Ohio, the unclaimed
funds case. It's going to fund all the public Stadia
Cleveland first with three hundred million or six hundred million.
I guess I should say out of this up to
two billion dollars unclaimed funds. So if you have an
unclaimed a case, or you have unclaimed funds, whether it's
a dollar or a million dollars, you have to go
(07:14):
to the state website to check your uncamp claim funds
and find them for yourself, as opposed to the state
doing due diligence to try and find you. That's the
crux of the argument he's making. In the judge of
federal judges ruled that the case can move forward with
some guardrails in place. There it's I think it was you,
or it was Mark dan or I had honi you
compared it to unclaimed funds to a dog shelters website.
(07:38):
You know, I got I think just within the last
year I went on and got like, because of this case,
actually I think about four hundred dollars on claim funds
I founded or my name and my brother did the same.
But the website itself, I mean I didn't have a
problem navigating, but you said, this is like the website
itself is terrible, and if it's bad, then it causes
people to maybe not look for their funds.
Speaker 2 (08:01):
The website is pretty rudimentary. We had a film a
tep fight the other day who handles e commerce for
BMW internationally, and you know, he's got an IT expert,
and he said, there's some fundamental flaws and the way
the database captures data, source data and spits it back
to you. One of the things we identified originally was
(08:21):
one of the planets in the case. His name is
pretty common. It's Todd Butler. If you put that name
into the database, it fits back a thousand and it
cuts off there. There might be ten thousand Todd Butler's
in there. You'll never know whether or not those other
ones are in there because it stops giving you results
after number one thousand. Then State admitted that the other day.
So there's just really no way to know what property
(08:42):
you truly have in that whole front. There's no way
to search it on.
Speaker 1 (08:45):
Imagine a government website or something the government not working properly. Jeff,
I'm shocked.
Speaker 2 (08:51):
Well, we're here to try to correct the process that
was the purpose of the laws. We're not anti stadium construction.
We're not anti Cleveland Browns were all sports antire in
dan law. But we do think that the government should
act constitutionally, and we do think that they should employe
some better safeguards to make sure people's rights are protected.
Speaker 1 (09:09):
Yeah, and I think it's important Fasta too. This is
not about going after the Cleveland Browns with the fund.
I mean, look at it this way. So I think
someone made the accusation. This is about opposing public funding
for stadiums and billionaire stadiums rather than property rights. But
would you be in the same position if it were
funding schools, hospital something all those on well unclaimed funds.
Speaker 2 (09:31):
The way they're doing it is unconstitutional, So you know
our position is constitutionally this doesn't make any sense if
it was a public purpose, a true public purpose like
building a school or building a fire station, for example,
that has a much more, much stronger justification than in
this case because it is money being used, it's a
taking for a non public purpose. Is there there is
(09:53):
a problem there too, Jeff?
Speaker 1 (09:54):
Is there a way you'd be satisfied? I mean, are
you posed to using unclan funds for a public person
purposes generally or is it problematic just the stadium funding
or is there a way to you, for you and
your clients or and your planing to those who brought
the suit here for them to be satisfied.
Speaker 2 (10:09):
Well, there are two constitutional issues here. One is the
purpose of its taking, which you've identified, and secondly is
the notice in the new process we need to have
an aa public purpose and be they have to improve
the new process safeguards here they don't exist right now.
Speaker 1 (10:24):
Again, Jeff Crossman's here from the Dan Law firm. He's
the lead counsel in this case brought against the State
of Ohio, the unclaimed funds case that we've talked about
here that would fund stadiums across Ohio. The only problem
is it's coming out of unclaimed funds and after ten
years that money would revert back to the state. And
he's saying there's just not enough notification in place, safeguards
in place, to make sure that your whole and that
(10:46):
you get to get your money simply because the state
would rather you not. There's a lot of entities would
do that too. Right now, the way the lost hands,
if money left dormant for ten plus years is presumed
to abandon. I guess the question is should the state
be able to redirec act unclaimed funds? And we're talking
about what makes that constitutionally acceptable? This morning on the show,
(11:06):
where do you think this goes in the next Well,
now I think too, didn't I say Tuesday? I believe
it's a day a judge should make a decision. Here
you confidence is going to move forward.
Speaker 2 (11:15):
The judge made a decision on the Pulmerian junction. Now
we're moving forward on the case and we're going to
decide whether we follow an appeal. And And by the way,
I should note that when the state amended the statute,
it automatically created a conflict of interest between the stat
and yourself. You know, think about say, you know your
investment account at Cheryl Schwab, if Charles Schwab now had
an incentive not to tell you how much money was
(11:36):
in the account or or what they were doing with
the money and that if you don't contact them in
a certain amount of time, they can just take your money.
We would all fundamentally agree that that's what we would
call indezzlement. And essentially what's going on here the state
now has a conflict of interest. They don't have any
incentive to tell you that the money is there in
the ways about protecting yourself. So, uh, it's a real problem.
Speaker 1 (12:00):
Yeah, it seems to be. You know, you laid out
a very very good, dynamic case as to why the
court should side with you and the plaintiffs in this
case simply because the lack of notification in the website
is terrible. My last name Sloan, not terribly uncommon, but
I could see if your last name is Smith or something.
Then if I'm not able to see and find exactly
the you know, Jeff Smith that's on there, and there's
(12:21):
probably thousands in the state of Ohio, that's problematic. I mean,
even if I want to find my money and that's
my common name, it's going to be difficult to do so,
and that's part of this lawsuit and rightly, so that's
exactly right, all right, So timeline here is now Judges
hearing this is probably going to move forward in this case.
Do you think the state eventually settles with this? Are
(12:43):
you looking for a settlement or just an outright I mean,
what what what happens to the stadium funding model if
you win?
Speaker 2 (12:50):
Well, that's an open question. I mean that was That's
why we argued that it was stafer to keep the
money where it is until we litigate the merits of
the case. And I think at the end of the day,
we're still optimistic that we're going to prevail here. And
if that's the case, then there's money. This half a
billion dollars or more has left the State of Ohio's coffers.
It's going to be taxpayers that have to put back
that money.
Speaker 1 (13:10):
Yeah, Jeff, all the best. Thanks for jepping on this
morn now. You're extremely busy, but I appreciate taking time
out to chat here. Jeff Crossmo, the Dan Law firm,
lead counsel in this case, All the best, You have
a great dable chat. Again, Thanks again, man, I appreciate you.
I've got some time here maybe to talk about this.
So I don't know if you've checked the Unclaimed fun site.
I have, and as I said, found like four hundred
bucks or something like that. I thought it was pretty
(13:32):
easy process myself on my name. Okay, this is me here, Boom.
But I have a common but not uncommon name. If
you have a very common name, I don't know if
you found it extremely difficult to navigate this side or not.
As I said, I didn't, but your results may vary.
Speaker 2 (13:50):
I don't know.
Speaker 1 (13:51):
I'm kind of torn on this, but I tend to
lean in this one towards more towards the state, and
not that I want people to lose their money, but
don't know after ten years, seems to me, with all
of the information out there, you know, check all you
gotta do is check this website. Now, it seems to
me that that is on you. Ten years, you don't
(14:11):
know that that money's out there. How far? How far
should the state go to try and get that money
back to you?
Speaker 2 (14:19):
Now?
Speaker 1 (14:20):
I think two things here are important that the state
would have to simply notify you somehow, send you a
postcard or whatever it might be, to a reasonable attempt
to contact you. I mean, I get contacted by people
I don't want contact contacting me all the time. They
can find me, but the state can't that's problematic, and
as he said, if you have a common name, it's
(14:41):
difficult to navigate the website. That strike too. But I
think if the state we're to change those two elements,
that to me seems like it would satisfy the claim
that they're trying to hold on the money. And you
can see that right, there's incentive for the state to
hold your cash in an unclaimed account because now it's
(15:02):
going to go to fund pet projects that lawmakers will
definitely line up to try and get that quote unquote
free money, not free, but quote unquote free money in
order to well build something nice to get votes. I'm
the guy who got the new Cleveland Stadium. I'm the
one who got pay Course Stadium. I'm the one that
got GABP made whole again and remodeled. So there's tremendous
(15:26):
incentive for the state here. But we'll get your thoughts
into the unclaimed funds thing. And like I said, I
tend to look at and go all right, I think
you fix a website and make a concerned effort, do
your due diligence and trying to locate someone with those funds,
then that's probably the best you can do. Outside of
the public notices in the website. Your Thoughts five one, three, seven, four,
nine hundred, The Big One Talkback VI, the iHeartRadio app.
(15:49):
You can get me there if you're listening to the
stream through your phone. We'll get do that. We'll get news.
We've got weather moving in all sorts of moving parts
this morning here on the Scoutslan Show on seven hundred
well W
Popular Podcasts
Las Culturistas with Matt Rogers and Bowen Yang
Ding dong! Join your culture consultants, Matt Rogers and Bowen Yang, on an unforgettable journey into the beating heart of CULTURE. Alongside sizzling special guests, they GET INTO the hottest pop-culture moments of the day and the formative cultural experiences that turned them into Culturistas. Produced by the Big Money Players Network and iHeartRadio.
Crime Junkie
Does hearing about a true crime case always leave you scouring the internet for the truth behind the story? Dive into your next mystery with Crime Junkie. Every Monday, join your host Ashley Flowers as she unravels all the details of infamous and underreported true crime cases with her best friend Brit Prawat. From cold cases to missing persons and heroes in our community who seek justice, Crime Junkie is your destination for theories and stories you won’t hear anywhere else. Whether you're a seasoned true crime enthusiast or new to the genre, you'll find yourself on the edge of your seat awaiting a new episode every Monday. If you can never get enough true crime... Congratulations, you’ve found your people. Follow to join a community of Crime Junkies! Crime Junkie is presented by audiochuck Media Company.
The Brothers Ortiz
The Brothers Ortiz is the story of two brothers–both successful, but in very different ways. Gabe Ortiz becomes a third-highest ranking officer in all of Texas while his younger brother Larry climbs the ranks in Puro Tango Blast, a notorious Texas Prison gang. Gabe doesn’t know all the details of his brother’s nefarious dealings, and he’s made a point not to ask, to protect their relationship. But when Larry is murdered during a home invasion in a rented beach house, Gabe has no choice but to look into what happened that night. To solve Larry’s murder, Gabe, and the whole Ortiz family, must ask each other tough questions.