|
Written by Gary Witt
|
|
Saturday, 19 November 2011 22:05 |
|
What do you do when a prominent politician blames a problem on people who are not the cause? This was the question that OFCC faced in late July after Canton City Council President Allen Schulman went on a four-minute tirade against guns and lawful concealed carry in Ohio.
Schulman’s attack came shortly after OFCC released a dash-cam video showing Canton police patrolman Dan Harless threatening to execute a handcuffed driver during a traffic stop. Harless’ obscenity-laced rant centered on the fact that the driver was a concealed handgun licensee. Harless’ charges against the driver were thrown out in court.
The entire saga, from dash-cam video to trial for the driver, can be seen on the Canton update page.
Knowing that legal gun ownership and lawful concealed carry were again being used by an anti-gun politician to divert public attention from a real problem, OFCC’s Phil Mulivor published a response to Councilman Schulman, naming Schulman Idiot of the Day on OFCC’s home web page. Shortly after publication, Schulman contacted OFCC in an effort to clarify his remarks and open a dialogue.
|
|
Read more...
|
|
|
Written by Jeff Garvas
|
|
Wednesday, 09 November 2011 20:43 |
The City of Canton, Ohio followed through with their criminal charges against William Bartlett today. After nearly two hours of motions and jury selection the trial was underway. OFCC was in the courtroom live blogging the events of the day on our website.
The Jury wasn't permitted to see the entire traffic stop, which Ohioans For Concealed Carry leaked to the public in late July of this past summer here: Canton Failure To Notify Dash Camera Footage
What followed was a desperate attempt by the Prosecutor's office to obfuscate Bartlett's attempt to notify. In fact, at one point in the trial the prosecutor lowered the audio on the television playing the dash camera footage. After the portion of the stop where Bartlett states "I have a conceal..." she walked around the television and turned the volume back up.
After the prosecution rested their case the jury was excused. Defense Attorney Tim Bellew made a motion to dismiss, or a "Criminal Rule 29" motion for acquittal. The judge eventually ruled in favor of this motion which has been explained to us as a conclusion that the state didn't meet it's burden of proof - the defense didn't even need to put on a trial and the jury didn't need to consider anything, the Judge threw the concealed carry charges out. As we've said all along, this shouldn't have gone to trial to begin with.
Finally, the judge stated that there was a charge of stopping in the roadway. A plea of no contest was entered and Bartlett was found guilty. He is to pay court costs (for the non-jury portion of the trial) and a fee not to exceed $150.
Following is the news media coverage of this case by Fox 8 in Cleveland Ohio:
|
|
Read more...
|
|
Written by Jeff Garvas
|
|
Wednesday, 09 November 2011 11:55 |
The trial of William Bartlett is now underway in Canton Municipal Court before judge Stephen F. Belden. Ohioans For Concealed Carry is in the courtroom today and will attempt to blog the trial events in real time.
Motions and jury selection took place from 9am through 11:30am when the jury was seated. Fifteen minutes later we were permitted back into the room and began taking notes. The jury consists of six women and three men. The jury varies in ages with one woman and man each possibly in their fifties.
The rest of the trial blog will appear in real time below this part of the story.
|
|
Read more...
|
|
Written by Jeff Garvas
|
|
Wednesday, 19 October 2011 20:40 |
As many of you know Ohioans For Concealed Carry sued the City of Cleveland Heights earlier this year and was met with comments in the media by the law director disparaging our claims. One such claim was that we had never brought to his attention all of the gun laws that Cleveland Heights needed to repeal.
In August of this year we published a story on our website Cleveland Heights, Law Director: On Notice Since 2008 in which we discredited the notion that OFCC hadn't been communicating with the City of Cleveland Heights about their illegal gun laws.
As part of the preparation for our lawsuit Ohioans For Concealed Carry made numerous public records requests to the City of Cleveland Heights. As one can imagine the city drug its feet in providing us the information we requested. In settlement discussions the City of Cleveland Heights offered a scenario that required Ohioans For Concealed Carry to rescind one of its public records requests.
Nothing puts up red flashing lights in my mind than a request like that. We refused.
Today, Ohioans For Concealed Carry received a partial response to the records requests we have issued to the City of Cleveland Heights. This particular record that we have acquired is a settlement agreement that the City of Cleveland Heights entered into in March of 2010 with a former contributor to our forums known as "freedom_fighter777" (Joseph Ponikvar Jr.) in which the City of Cleveland Heights ordered him to the ground at gun point and forcibly detained him for openly carrying a firearm.
Despite his efforts to educate them with the Attorney General's handbook they wanted to hear nothing of what the actual law was. You can "watch" a YouTube video of that incident here (Its mostly blacked out with audio)
Ponikvar Jr. (freedom_fighter777 on our forums) entered into an agreement that required him not to reveal the monetary amount of the settlement:
4) Except as necessary to enforce any of the terms and conditions of this settlement agreement, Joseph Ponikvar shall keep the monetary amount of the settlement confidential.
If you've read our forums, you know that Ponikvar never revealed the financial terms of his settlement and it frustrated many people who wanted to know just how successful he might have been. Just how much was the City of Cleveland Heights willing to pay him for what they did? Unfortunately, not all that much taking into consideration how much an attorney charges hourly:
(A) $ 5,000 shall be paid to plaintiff by draft made payable to plaintiff and his attorney Robert N. Stein Co LPA (with the intent that these funds shall be used to pay plaintiff's attorney fees with the remainder, if any, going to the plaintiff).
Looking back at that offer to settle with Ohioans For Concealed Carry if we were willing to rescind our public records request over a $5,000 settlement doesn't seem all that significant, does it? Parties familiar with the settlement aspects that were discussed on our website already know that this was a part of the agreement:
2) Commencing no later than March 15, 2010 the City of Cleveland Heights shall train all its personnel connected with law enforcement with respect to the provisions of 9.68 Revised Code, unless it has already done so.
This doesn't seem like such a big deal. Until you realize who signed the agreement on March 18th, 2010:
In other words, further proof that Cleveland Heights Law Director John Gibbons not only should have fully understood Ohio Revised Code 9.68 - his office and the City of Cleveland Heights committed in a "Stipulated Dismissal Entry" filed in federal court to train all it's personnel connected with law enforcement with respect to the very law Ohioans For Concealed Carry sued them for violating.
In fact, the city's blatantly ignoring their obligation to comply with ORC 9.68 is further proof that our lawsuit was not only justified, but a necessary catalyst to force them to comply with Ohio Law.
Tax payers in the City of Cleveland Heights should be disgusted with their city leadership's open check book for violating individual freedoms and ignoring state laws. |
|
Written by Jeff Garvas
|
|
Monday, 17 October 2011 22:55 |
After months of waiting and efforts by the defense counsel to have the charges against Mr. Bartlett dropped by the court we find ourselves staring down the date of an actual criminal trial against William Bartlett. He is charged with the crime of failing to "promptly inform" the police that he was armed, despite video evidence to the contrary.
The Canton prosecutors clearly have a vendetta against Mr. Bartlett for being in a bad part of town while lawfully in possession of a firearm. It's as if such a scenario can't be permitted to happen, so we must take this man to trial regardless of the facts and common sense.
Considering the judges written statements in an October 5th ruling on the motion to dismiss one has to wonder why the City of Canton would continue to pursue these criminal charges at all:
"As noted by defense counsel at the evidentiary hearing, the video evidence contradicts the allegations of the complaint that Mr. Bartlett's weapon was not discovered until a pat down of his person was conducted. The video shows that Mr. Bartlett notified Officer Harless of the presence of the weapon before the pat down took place. This raises the issue of whether the officer had probable cause to make the arrest, an issue which is premature for this court to address."
Please support William Bartlett by making plans to attend the trial on November 9th. For details about where to park or how to find the court, please read this post in our discussion forums - To support the legal defense fund, which has paid thousands of dollars of legal expenses to date, please consider a donation of any amount via our secure website. |
|
|
<< Start < Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next > End >>
|
