• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Federal Judge Orders Cincinnati Not To Ticket OWS'ers

Ockham said:
The law is still on the books... I understand your point, but because politics has entered into it doesn't mean the law is null and void. You and I both know it may take months or years to overturn a law or to get politicians to amend that law. It also depends on the law...
Click to expand...

it's not void, but it's been put on hold. It's suspended for the time being. As such, it's no longer a valid law which gives power to the police to enforce. The police cannot enforce a suspended law. It's part of the standard checks and balances we have on our system. It would be dangerous, IMO, to state that cops can enforce any law they want regardless of judiciary review.
 
Pinkie said:
I am now BEYOND confused. On what basis did a federal judge TRO the City of Cincinnati against enforcing tickets to clear its parks after-hours? On what basis did the OWS protestors tell a reporter to leave a meeting to discuss the issue with the city? Where does the city AND the OWS'ers get off keeping the settlement offer, which is in writing, a secret from the public?

So basically, what we have here is a unconstitutional action by a federal judge, to protect the freedom of speech of the OWS'ers, who in turn denied the public THEIR freedom of speech rights to know what they're negotiating with the city.

Raise your hand if this confuses you, too.
Click to expand...


Chief Judge Susan Dlott is the wife of huge Dem donor Stan Chesley who is currently facing disbarment proceedings in KY over a case where he claimed fees of over ten million dollars for 20 hours of work. CJ Dlott is well liked by us who practice in federal courts but she does have a history of bending over backwards to rule against the police in Cincinnati including the "collective agreement" that took place after an unarmed youth-with 14 minor warrants-fled a cop for a long middle of the night foot chase that resulted in the officer fatally shooting Timothy Thomas when Thomas became cornered and went to yank his falling pants up. this lead to massive black riots and a wave of black on black murders as the police sopped aggressively patrolling the high crime black areas of "over the rhine" area of Cincinnati. Dlott also awarded substantial damages against the CPD over alleged hostile treatment of a transgendered police sgt. In other words, of the five judges that were available, the protestors got the best possible pick, senior Judge Sandra Beckwith is married to a retired CPD Lt and has a reputation of not putting up with any crap from miscreants. Nor does Sr Judge Herman Weber. Senior Judge Spiegel is a liberal but follows the law scrupulously. THe youngest Judge in Cincinnati is Mike Barrett-part of the family that owns the Western Southern LIfe insurance company and runs the Barrett Cancer center. He's fairly easy going but the protestors' act would quickly wear thin with him
 
Why can't you people side with law enforcement? What the hell kind of untouchables do you think you are?
 
Reg said:
Why can't you people side with law enforcement? What the hell kind of untouchables do you think you are?
Click to expand...

Lots of people hate the rich and blame them for being failures
 
Reg said:
Why can't you people side with law enforcement? What the hell kind of untouchables do you think you are?
Click to expand...

Why can't you side with the Republic?
 
TurtleDude said:
Chief Judge Susan Dlott is the wife of huge Dem donor Stan Chesley who is currently facing disbarment proceedings in KY over a case where he claimed fees of over ten million dollars for 20 hours of work. CJ Dlott is well liked by us who practice in federal courts but she does have a history of bending over backwards to rule against the police in Cincinnati including the "collective agreement" that took place after an unarmed youth-with 14 minor warrants-fled a cop for a long middle of the night foot chase that resulted in the officer fatally shooting Timothy Thomas when Thomas became cornered and went to yank his falling pants up. this lead to massive black riots and a wave of black on black murders as the police sopped aggressively patrolling the high crime black areas of "over the rhine" area of Cincinnati. Dlott also awarded substantial damages against the CPD over alleged hostile treatment of a transgendered police sgt. In other words, of the five judges that were available, the protestors got the best possible pick, senior Judge Sandra Beckwith is married to a retired CPD Lt and has a reputation of not putting up with any crap from miscreants. Nor does Sr Judge Herman Weber. Senior Judge Spiegel is a liberal but follows the law scrupulously. THe youngest Judge in Cincinnati is Mike Barrett-part of the family that owns the Western Southern LIfe insurance company and runs the Barrett Cancer center. He's fairly easy going but the protestors' act would quickly wear thin with him
Click to expand...

Excellent post!

Now, can you please tell me, what do these OWS'ers want? And if they have no leaders but are instead a spontaneous uprising of disaffected citizens, then who decided to exclude the reporter from the meeting? Who refused the city's settlement offer?

For that matter, who sought a TRO against the city on their behalf?
 
Reg said:
The protesters don't own the land. It's a public park governed by police powers they consent to.
Click to expand...
They are not a part of the public?
 
Pinkie said:
Excellent post!

Now, can you please tell me, what do these OWS'ers want? And if they have no leaders but are instead a spontaneous uprising of disaffected citizens, then who decided to exclude the reporter from the meeting? Who refused the city's settlement offer?

For that matter, who sought a TRO against the city on their behalf?
Click to expand...

an attorney filed the request-some guy I don't know (Geoffrey Miller)

filed on behalf of "Occupy cincinnati" to stop the CPD from actually enforcing a reasonable law that was on the books


the attorney went to capital university which doesn't mean much-it is not rated very highly but its the night school option in Columbus and night schools often draw highly talented people who have to work while going to law school. a search of Miller shows he has been a member of the Ohio bar for 9 years and does general stuff- criminal,divorce, PI, family law

the local news just announced that a "major ruling has been issued by the judge-I will try to find out what happened
I suspect if this goes on the City will take an emergency appeal to the 6th Circuit which tends to be less friendly to such stuff than the most liberal of 5 judges on the Cincinnati federal bench
 
TurtleDude said:
an attorney filed the request-some guy I don't know (Geoffrey Miller)

filed on behalf of "Occupy cincinnati" to stop the CPD from actually enforcing a reasonable law that was on the books


the attorney went to capital university which doesn't mean much-it is not rated very highly but its the night school option in Columbus and night schools often draw highly talented people who have to work while going to law school. a search of Miller shows he has been a member of the Ohio bar for 9 years and does general stuff- criminal,divorce, PI, family law

the local news just announced that a "major ruling has been issued by the judge-I will try to find out what happened
I suspect if this goes on the City will take an emergency appeal to the 6th Circuit which tends to be less friendly to such stuff than the most liberal of 5 judges on the Cincinnati federal bench
Click to expand...

Greatly appreciated, Turtle. And if you get a clue as to what these people want, will you pass that along as well? I myself have no freakin' idea.

:)
 
apdst said:
But, they not being told they can't assemble. They're being told they can't camp. There's the potential to create a bio-hazard in that environment, which could be detrimental to the, "general welfare".
Click to expand...
Maybe this was covered past here, but this is as far as I've got so far. Due process. I do not know what they outcome of the lawsuit will be but this is how lawsuits are routinely handled. All actions and proceedings are temporarily stopped until a ruling is made. Yes, the judge could have perhaps ruled "fine them" but a judge rarely likes getting overruledwhen he hasn't even heard the entire arguement yet. This is likely in the best interest of the city also. The people have a right to protest. I understand that there are rules governing the parkBUT it may be in the best interest to allow them to protest in the park as opposed to the sidewalk, street or in the halls of the city building.
 
Last edited:
Reg said:
The protesters don't own the land. It's a public park governed by police powers they consent to.
Click to expand...
Perhaps the judge considers the protester to be members of the public. :shrug
 
Reg said:
Judges swear to uphold the law and defend the Constitution.
Click to expand...
Wrong again.

http://www.sconet.state.oh.us/Judiciary/candidates/oath.pdf


I, _________________________________________​
​
(insert name)​
​
do solemnly swear​
​
that I will support the Constitution of the United States​
​
and the Constitution of Ohio,​
​
will administer justice without respect to persons,​
​
and will faithfully and impartially​
​
discharge and perform all the duties incumbent upon me​
​
as ________________________________________,​
​
(insert office)​
​
according to the best of my ability and understanding.​
​
(This I do as I shall answer unto God.)http://www.sconet.state.oh.us/Judiciary/candidates/oath.pdf​
​
 
Simon W. Moon said:
Perhaps the judge considers the protester to be members of the public. :shrug
Click to expand...
other members of the public who stayed in the park after the closing time were told to leave by the cops or ticketed. I know, for several years I was a county prosecutor in the same court rooms where the city solicitors tried misdemeanor cases and at least a couple times a week someone was there for similar violations.

the question is what gives these turds the right to disobey a law?

What I want to know is how this case ended up in front of CJ DLott. normally cases are "rolled" by random assignment but sometimes things are different
 
Now, as to the other points raised by posters to this thread:

The freedoms of speech and assembly are not limitless. Reasonable time, place and manner restrictions are constitutional, under a line of decisions dating back at least 100 years. The City of Cincinnati is not some bohunk municipality with three used car salesmen as its councilmen; it has a well-staffed legal department who write and review the ordinances the city adopts.

I don't have the TRO, or the petition for it, so I don't know what constitutional issues the OWS'ers raised as to the city's ordinances regarding park closing times. However, I can assure you that there had to be some or else jurisdiction would not have been available to get this heard in federal court.

I also don't know which park they're occupying. Here's a link to a map showing where all such parks are located:

Cincinnati Parks - All Cincinnati Park Locations - CincyParks.com
 
Simon W. Moon said:
And you're making that allegation against your fellow posters in this thread.
Click to expand...

who are you referring to? I was talking about the scumbags messing up a public park and harming the nearby businesses by their silly temper tantrums
 
Also, most Cincinnati city parks have events scheduled for the next couple of weeks, so people can enjoy Halloween, or the fall color, or whatnot -- especially since winter is coming.

Are the folks who wanted to attend such events relegated to the "less important" pile because the OWS'ers want to face off with the city and pee in the bushes? In other words, what about the rights of the people who hoped to use these parks as parks?
 
TurtleDude said:
who are you referring to? I was talking about the scumbags messing up a public park and harming the nearby businesses by their silly temper tantrums
Click to expand...
My mistake then.

I assumed that Reg was talking about the posters here and that you were too.
It was a different "you people."

Reg said:
Why can't you people side with law enforcement? What the hell kind of untouchables do you think you are?
Click to expand...
 
Pinkie said:
Are the folks who wanted to attend such events relegated to the "less important" pile because the OWS'ers want to face off with the city and pee in the bushes? In other words, what about the rights of the people who hoped to use these parks as parks?
Click to expand...
I don't think it's a final ruling. I have the impression that it's just until there is a decision that the judge is erring on the side of allowing expression.
doesn't mean that the judge won't find against the protesters.
 
Pinkie said:
Also, most Cincinnati city parks have events scheduled for the next couple of weeks, so people can enjoy Halloween, or the fall color, or whatnot -- especially since winter is coming.

Are the folks who wanted to attend such events relegated to the "less important" pile because the OWS'ers want to face off with the city and pee in the bushes? In other words, what about the rights of the people who hoped to use these parks as parks?
Click to expand...

The rights of the OWS'ers override the rights of everyone else.
 
TurtleDude said:
filed on behalf of "Occupy cincinnati" to stop the CPD from actually enforcing a reasonable law that was on the books
Click to expand...

Reasonable? Maybe. But I would say that reasonable in and of itself may not cut it when the larger rights at stake are protest, dissent, assembly, redress, speech, press, privacy, arms, etc..
 
1Perry said:
Maybe this was covered past here, but this is as far as I've got so far. Due process. I do not know what they outcome of the lawsuit will be but this is how lawsuits are routinely handled. All actions and proceedings are temporarily stopped until a ruling is made. Yes, the judge could have perhaps ruled "fine them" but a judge rarely likes getting overruledwhen he hasn't even heard the entire arguement yet. This is likely in the best interest of the city also. The people have a right to protest. I understand that there are rules governing the parkBUT it may be in the best interest to allow them to protest in the park as opposed to the sidewalk, street or in the halls of the city building.
Click to expand...

Perry, a TRO is an extraordinary remedy. It is supposed to only be granted when the rights of the parties will be irreparably harmed by the time litigation is finished AND the moving party can make a showing that there is a substantial likelihood of success.

In this case, I'd say the "likelihood of success" at trial of proving any Cincinnati park ordinance to be unconstitutional is about 1 in 1 Million. This TRO should NOT have been granted.
 
Ikari said:
Reasonable? Maybe. But I would say that reasonable in and of itself may not cut it when the larger rights at stake are protest, dissent, assembly, redress, speech, press, privacy, arms, etc..
Click to expand...

"Reasonable time, place and manner restrictions" is the essence of constitutional government restrictions on freedom of speech or assembly. If the city meets this burden, and IMO, they certainly will, then the OWS'ers lose.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom