Hot News!
• Presidential Campaign Stump Speech Quiz Show!
• Rumor has it “Blasphemy” is banned at The Enquirer
• The Small Donor-Fallacy: Don’t believe the hype!
Contact Us
v mail, fax: (214) 481-6464
e mail: click here
Events
 Saturday July 12, 10 am-12 pm Quarterly GET-TOGETHER BRUNCH for LOCAL PEACE AND JUSTICE GROUPS @ Peaslee Neighborhood Center (215 E 14th St - free parking lot next to center) - John Davis from Sojourners Cincinnati is the coordinator and the facilitator for this session Topic: “Poverty in Cincinnati”
1) Status of Poverty in Cincinnati – John Davis - Sojourners Cincinnati
|
July 12-17 NAACP Annual Convention - Power, Justice, Freedom, Vote
|
July, 19am - 12pm Immigration
|
Saturday, September 08, 2007
Breaking the Law? Sheriff Leis and the Harvest Home Parade
Posted by Michael Earl Patton
Photo courtesy of here.
Sheriff Leis continues to campaign for the new jail using taxpayer dollars. (See the earlier Beacon story, Simon Leis: Campaign Solicitations on the Taxpayer’s Dime?) Look at the pictures provided in this article and note the signs saying “Support the New Jail” on the different sheriff’s vehicles in the Harvest Home Parade. Even the tractor-trailer carrying the sheriff’s riot tank has a sign.
Per Section 9.03(C) of the Ohio Revised Code: “… no governing body of a political subdivision shall use public funds to do any of the following: (1) Publish, distribute, or otherwise communicate information that does any of the following: (a) ... (e) Supports or opposes the nomination or election of a candidate for public office, the investigation, prosecution, or recall of a public official, or the passage of a levy or bond issue.” (emphasis added).
This parade of force, with instructions to “Support the New Jail,” is reminiscent of the May Day parades in the old Soviet Union. In the United States, by contrast, people are supposed to be able to freely cast their vote without an implied threat of force. It is no step at all from this to uniformed soldiers marching in a parade with signs saying “Vote Republican” or “Vote Democrat.”
(If you cannot see the slideshow, view the evidence here.)
• Share This Article!
Listen to this article
|  |
Register
Anonymous comments are allowed, but you can create an account above to stamp your name and to avoid typing the anti-spam code.
If you are not familiar with our rules for leaving comments, click here! The Cincinnati Beacon is not responsible for the contents of any comments. Comments do not represent the views of the moderators of The Cincinnati Beacon.
08 Sep 2007 at 10:04 am | #
So what is the procedure to hold him accountable, and who is going to do it?
08 Sep 2007 at 10:36 am | #
I bet Smitherman is the only one that has the balls to take on Leis!
I tell you one thing, it won’t be Si Edgar Hoover’s buddies Portune and Pepper.
08 Sep 2007 at 11:02 am | #
I’ve just sent this link to some of the attorneys who have assisted in the efforts to stop The White Democratic Sales Tax Hike. Hopefully they’ll pursue this to the extent of the law. If we want to put the pressure on ourselves I suppose we could complain to the Prosecutor’s office, file complaints with the Board of Elections, and show up to Monday morning’s Commissioners meeting to complain about this.
08 Sep 2007 at 11:37 am | #
I am going to suggest that the NAACP PAC do so at the next PAC committee meeting. Can someone provide me with stills of the photos above?
08 Sep 2007 at 12:26 pm | #
First there needs to be a complaint to both the county prosecutor and the Board of Elections and when they fail to response suitably, then a complaint should be filed with the state attorney general. After that revolution!
08 Sep 2007 at 02:09 pm | #
Go right ahead, Dean. And everyone else who is concerned. It doesn’t have to be an organization or head of an organization that brings this to the attention of the state Attorney General’s office. An outpouring of letters to that office would get some attention, I hope. And any citizen can file a claim with the Ohio Ethics Commission.
08 Sep 2007 at 02:29 pm | #
"The White Democratic Sales Tax Hike”
Another beauty brought to you by Jeff Capell, The African-American community’s best friend.
08 Sep 2007 at 02:41 pm | #
Monica, follow the link under the slideshow to the flicker page. You can click on each one. Above the shot, you’ll see a button for various sizes. You can then find the biggest file, and save it to your hard drive.
08 Sep 2007 at 02:58 pm | #
Thank you Dean,
I shall do just that!
08 Sep 2007 at 03:38 pm | #
Mr. Brian Shrive has already written one such letter to the county prosecutor, requesting an injunction against Sheriff Leis.
08 Sep 2007 at 04:31 pm | #
Sorry folks, I’m not sure, but I think these parades are accepted campaigning vehicles wherein politicians or special interest groups have been allowed to promote their political opinions and stances and promote themselves and issues - as long as everyone has the equal right to participate.
This is not going to be as clear cut as you think. But, good luck—there’s a trick to it - let’s see if you guys can put a little thought into it and figure it out, unlike your opposition to CSP in the first place.
08 Sep 2007 at 07:17 pm | #
anon2000,
Huh? The rule is against using public funds to support a bond levy. Leis did not use his pick up truck to push for a jail. He used County equipment.
Get it?
08 Sep 2007 at 07:51 pm | #
The complaint is not against the parade, but against Sheriff Leis. The point is, as the Dean stated, that the sheriff used public vehicles, public uniforms, and probably salaries paid by the public, insurance paid by the public, and gasoline paid by the public, to promote the jail tax.
If, perhaps, he had offered to all the groups opposing the jail tax an opportunity to put their signs alongside his, then maybe anon2000 would have a point. The situation would then be like the candidate nights at the different neighborhoods—no particular candidate is promoted, but every candidate has an opportunity to speak and distribute literature in what is generally a public place. But that’s not the case here. Only one message was allowed (so much for the First Amendment).
08 Sep 2007 at 11:13 pm | #
Si Leis parading his arsenal reinforces cemented public opinion that our county is wasting resources, cement can be easily broken, not reinforced cement, Let me explain, I live in exile in the People’s Republic of Mount Carmel, seldom venturing west of Interstate 75, never further than Primavista.
Past few weeks I have been assisting 70y/o Queensgate inmate, lawn mower criminal, Ron Brown
http://www.hcso.org/publicservices/inmateinfo/InmateDetails.aspx?JMSid=1265450
by caring for 74y/o housebound sister Charmagne Brown, this duty requires venturing to Westwood twice a week, occasionally three times. I’ve been around Cincinnati most of my life, never had opportunity to experience Harvest Home festivities, since I was in the area tending to Charmagne I thought this right time for that experience before I became a ghost.
Comments overheard as referenced artillery passed ranged from “WTF, are we going to war” to “the river’s in Kentucky, what’s that for?….Winton Woods Lake?” and “never had no fuckin’ luxury paddy wagon like that when I’sa be locked up” It reminds MEP of Communist May Day parades, it reminds me of past Time Magazine articles where Saddam Hussein (rip) was reviewing his equipment.
This ostentatious exhibit of elitism does nothing but enrage the voting proletariat, I witnessed anger around me.
08 Sep 2007 at 11:25 pm | #
Keep digging or you’ll blow it—like you did when you made the call against the CSP and its reforms - c’mon, keep working THIS issue, it’s far more important than transforming our justice system in Hamilton County
08 Sep 2007 at 11:37 pm | #
If my memory serves me correctly, & it generally does, I didn’t hear a peep out of anyone when the “be-bop” hokey jail commercials ran last year. That deputy sitting at the desk with actor-criminals gooning it up at the windows is really one of Si’s boys. Betcha the deputy was on the timeclock while filming.
The only squawking that was done during political campaign ad season last year was N8 over John Cranley purportedly using real CPD officers in the ads. Of course, it was all blow & no go with that little boy.
I’m inclined to side with Anon2000 in the #11 comments. This was all cut & dried before Si had all his toys lined up to be washed & waxed by the jail inmates on 2fer & 3fer details.
Whee! Seeing this is going to the NAACS (National Association for the Advancement of Chris Smitherman), I can’t wait to see his Adolf Hitler pose on the the Courthouse steps. Maybe he can whip up an Idi Amin-Dada characterization or something equally as outrageous. The Uncle Fidel posturing over the dog woman was a real hoot!
09 Sep 2007 at 09:35 am | #
I remember that pro-jail commercial. It was paid for using private funds. As Jones pointed out, it was “hokey” and probably helped defeat the jail tax last year.
As for the deputy being “one of Si’s boys,” I didn’t notice that. In any event, if he was paid using private funds and was not wearing a government-issued uniform, there is no problem. I have examined commercials in the past showing uniformed people staged next to certain Cincinnati City Council candidates. But if one looks closely (and I have examined some of these frame-by-frame) one sees that they are wearing costumes or security guard uniforms.
Everybody else knows what the law is—how come the sheriff ignores it?
09 Sep 2007 at 01:35 pm | #
so which levy is he supporting? could he be supporting alternative plans besides the levy that call for a new jail? All i see is support for a new jail.
Of course we know what he is supporting but since he never came out and said “vote for the levy” i think you are wasting your time. kind of like the monzel reds schedules of a couple years ago that you wasted time on
09 Sep 2007 at 03:28 pm | #
How long was his show? I know in the St. Pat’s parade he brings out every vechicle he has. It is pure overkill and it usually ruins the parade. I always think when all those vechicles are rolling by, “What a waste of taxpayer money.”
Maybe Mr. DeWine can bring this up at the next budget meeting.
09 Sep 2007 at 04:08 pm | #
Ronald Brown deserves to be in jail. He is one of many a slum lord responsible for the decline of the westside neighborhoods. How would you like to live next to a decrepit junkyard? That’s exactly what this property was, complete with a rusted old car that couldn’t run (18,000 miles or not), old leaking 55 gallon metal drums, scores of lawn mowers, old appliances and more.
By the way, as usual you didn’t tell us the whole story about why Brown is in Jail, did you? He violently threatened a housing inspector with bodily harm, bearing a tire iron in his hands.
He also ignored order after order to clean up his property. and makerepairs to the condemned house he owned. The City has been trying for years to force Brown to clean up his properties. We have zoning laws in this nation, whether you like it or not and you are bound to follow these laws just like any other law.
How would you like for someone to tear down two or three houses next to yours and build, say, a slaughterhouse right next door to you? Fortunately, we have zoning laws to keep this from happening.
Of course Dapper can hardly be objective on this issue, given his extensive record of clashes with the City over his refusal to follow the law. The cases received some coverage in the local media.
If you don’t want to live within zoning codes then you should move out to the countryside, in an unincorporated area where there are no zoning laws in effect.
The City needs to crackdown on slumlords throughout the City. This City has over 1000 blighted buildings in it, and that’s unacceptable. We need a housing court like many other cities including both Cleveland and Columbus have, so these slum lords and absentee owners of abandoned and blighted properties can be quickly prosecuted and their properties can be rehabbed, auctioned off or torn down. This is the only way that Over The Rhine will ever be rehabbed, like Columbus’ Short North District or Cleveland’s Warehouse District.
09 Sep 2007 at 05:41 pm | #
I clicked on the link provided, and lo!, the inspector was Albert Taylor. I have had experience with Mr. Taylor relative to house inspections. He is the one who condemned a house belonging to a West End non-profit housing group, saying it had dangerous cracking in the rear. When I asked to have him point out the cracks, he came to the house but then refused saying that he had sworn statements from two different inspectors that they were there. When I asked how we could fix cracks that we couldn’t see, he said that all that was important was that we “satisfy” him. Then he became emphatic, “When are you going to satisfy me?” He boasted that city council gave him wide latitude in such affairs. He kept on asking when we were going to “satisfy” him, and emphasized that he did not have to actually point out any specific defect. Basically I took this as an appeal for a bribe.
By the way, I am a licensed professional engineer. I majored in structures and I have perhaps 20 years experience dealing with older houses. I have also had an expert with even more experience than I look at this house. Mr. Taylor and his inspectors made the whole crack thing up.
And if Mr. Taylor can lie about this, he can lie about anything. More than ever I think that Mr. Brown was persecuted, maybe because he refused to pay a bribe.
I have complained about Mr. Taylor to Cincinnati city council, who of course did nothing. Way to go, Cincinnati! Let more and more people deal with Mr. Taylor. This will get more people to invest here (sarcasm).
09 Sep 2007 at 05:51 pm | #
This sounds like something a desperate lawyer would come up with. Look at the language in the code: “ or otherwise communicate information that does any of the following ..” Look at the letter he sent to his employees, linked in the article. That letter refers to the levy on the November ballot. Then there was the face-off with Commissioner Pat DeWine earlier. The sheriff’s meaning is clear, as formerly f points out at the end of his comment.
09 Sep 2007 at 06:39 pm | #
So ‘he made the whole thing up’, and Taylor’s out to ‘persecute’ Brown? Bullshit! What about this complaint from 2003, filed by one Jeff Mackay with the Building Department, or this one from Scott Bohnert with the department in 2004? Are they all ‘out to get’ Mr. Brown? is the entire Building Department ‘out to get’ Mr. Brown? The whole of City and County government and the courts?? You coming across as a conspiracy freak MEP.
The anecdote about your experience with Albert Taylor is impossible to substantiate because it’s just your word against his. That is unless you challenged his decision in court and have some type of an assessment from an independent expert or something of the kind. It’s just more he said/he said otherwise.
Did you challenge his Taylor’s decision, and if not, why not? If you were certain in your judgement, wouldn’t you file suit to have his ruling overturned? The fact that you didn’t is very telling, and your tale should be judged bearing this in mind.
09 Sep 2007 at 09:30 pm | #
We checked about an appeal. An appeal with the Building Department was impossible, we were told, because the house was already condemned. One can only appeal a condemnation before it is actually condemned. Yes, this is kafka-esque, but that is what I was told.
A formal court challenge would cost us over $10,000 just to get started. We decided not to take the city to court. I just “love” it when anonymous commentators heap scorn on others and when they think that non-profits are just rolling in money. What the city is doing is theft, pure and simple, and theft from those who can least afford it.
The references CincyCapell cite have nothing to do with Mr. Brown attacking anyone. The original comment was that Stephen Dapper did not provide the full story. Well, neither did CincyCapell, and I filled in some more of the story.
Unlike CincyCapell, I sign my name to what I write (and, I should pint out, so did Stephen Dapper). The one screaming the loudest that the whole thing is a fraud has chosen to be anonymous. The incident is not impossible to substantiate. The house is still there. Go ahead, CincyCapell, contact me and make arrangements to see it for yourself. See if you can find the dangerous cracks. I’ll have Justin or the Dean there, too, so they can film you as you point out the cracks.
No. That was CincyCapell’s story about Ron Brown and the tire iron. There is considerably more evidence than he said/she said to my Taylor story. There is the house itself, which is still standing. And unless the city has destroyed them, some of the evidence should be on the audio tape of the condemnation hearing.
I stand by what I wrote. The only thing that is telling about not filing suit is that neither I nor the non-profit have gallons of money.
09 Sep 2007 at 10:25 pm | #
just because the meaning is clear means nothing. That is why lawyers have a job
go back to jasons argument that chris monzel was using city money to get himself re-elected to city council by printing reds schedules that had a picture of him and the title “city council” or something to that effect. The intent was very clear- to build up re election name recognition. but what was the result of the jasons dispute- nothing because it didnt include “vote for” or language to that effect.
how many times must media activist make the same mistake before they finally figure out the laws?
09 Sep 2007 at 10:34 pm | #
We have certainly gone astray from “Breaking the Law? Sheriff Leis and the Harvest Home Parade” if it is my fault by introducing Mr. Brown’s sister that has lead to straying our thoughts it was certainly not my intent. I merely meant to rationalize my existence, at what was for me a foreign event, to assist in understanding presentation of my observations.
I invite those using alias, Lothar, of the Hill People #20, and CincyCapell #23 (what are you hiding) to repost in more appropriate location, say, The Other Side: Ron Brown, Lawn Mower Lover and Vacuum Collector currently located last in Recent Independent Eye section. Better yet, post in little used “Open Wire” section, that is, indeed, it’s purpose.
Titillating correspondence to Enquires Kimbell Perry regarding Mr. Brown and Al Taylor follows, I eagerly await your approiate location posting to continue our discussion, I have facts to refute all your claims
----- Original Message -----
From:
To:
Sent: Thursday, June 14, 2007 6:16 PM
Subject: Ronald Brown story
Greetings Mr. Perry,
Read with interest today’s Ronald Brown story. It appears you did not bother to interview Mr. Brown, why not? You write “Al Taylor was trying to do his job” Do you believe provoking hostility is part of a building officials duties? Seems to me Mr. Taylor is an antagonist, Mr. Taylor, by his own admission, had a prominent role in recommending that another of Mr. Brown’s buildings be demolished. When was that? recently? After destroying property of Mr. Brown’s, to arrive at his home, while Mr. Brown was present in his yard, then taking photos of Mr. Brown’s home, is nothing less than physiological antagonism. You are not a fair, unbiased, reporter. There’s two sides to every story, your readers deserve to know the truth regarding this situation. Were you aware of Al Tailors other appearances in the Enquire? A portion of Gregory Korte’s story follows:
1. Inspector moved on complaint of conflict
January 1, 2004 •• 455 words •• ID: cin2004010115230511
By Gregory Korte The Cincinnati Enquirer DOWNTOWN - A Cincinnati building inspector will be transferred after city investigators accused him of directing a property owner to his father’s repair business. Al Taylor, a building inspector who has worked in the Hazard Abatement Program for 10 years, referred the out-of town owner of a condemned Madisonville house to Ron Taylor Repair Co., officials said. The company later did more than $10,000 of work on the house, according .
Only government employees are so secure that they can remain on the job after such illegal, deceitful purposes. To now listen to William Langevin defend this conspirator’s obvious absurdities makes me sick.
If Al Taylor believes using an extension cord poses a fire threat, and has been granted authority to cite extension cord users for fire violations, it should come as no surprise people are fleeing this city, I’m lucky, I left the city years ago, I’m leaving to trim my yard, using my electric weed-wacker, at the end of my hundred foot extension cord, without the unfortunate, disastrous, consequences Mr. Brown faces.
Regards,
Stephen Dapper
Link to above Kimbell Perry story
http://news.cincinnati.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070614/NEWS01/706140321/-1/CINCI
10 Sep 2007 at 11:51 am | #
Precisely. “… or language to that effect.” The sheriff used the word “support.” The sheriff did not have signs that said “The proposed new jail will have 1800 beds.” That would have been a fact, not advocacy.
Take a look at the “Comprehensive Safety Plan” booklet. Does it say anywhere “support” the plan? Of course not. Commissioners Portune and Pepper know what the law is.
10 Sep 2007 at 10:22 pm | #
lets try this again because you still don’t get it. In none of the signs you have posted does it ever say to “vote for the levy” it says to “support the new jail”. There is NO mention of voting for or against the Levy is there. without support for the levy in some way being listed it is not a campaign violation.
Even though common sense says that “support the new jail” is a call to vote for the levy it is not legally the same thing as a sign that says “support the levy” or “vote for the levy”. A lawyer will understand this difference perfectly. It seems the writers of the beacon cannot even though they have been told it before in the past.
11 Sep 2007 at 11:15 am | #
Please, formerly f, if you are a lawyer, provide a reference.
My point is that “support” in Leis’s signs means “support” as used in the Ohio Revised Code.
If memory serves, there have been “issue ads” which have been challenged in court and have been upheld as being outside federal campaign laws because they were involved in issues, not advocating for or against a specific candidate. I am guessing that this is formerly f’s point. But two things: 1) I think the issue ads were challenged using federal law, not Ohio law, and 2) the ads were advocating issues that were not on the ballot. The jail levy IS on the ballot.
12 Sep 2007 at 11:01 am | #
Formerly F - Read the following link:
http://www.hamiltoncountyohio.gov/administrator/bsi/jail/SafetyPlanSummary.pdf
This is the summary of the Pepper/Portune/Leis “Comprehensive Safety Plan”. Look at the last paragraph. “There are no no-tax options”.
This is the plan Si endorses. He’s asking for a jail on the signs, and then stating that there is no way to do it without a tax increase. There’s a tax increase for a jail on the levy. Put two and two together.
12 Sep 2007 at 04:11 pm | #
For the first time in years I missed the Parade. And I’m sorta glad since it is an election/erection year. I know it was longer than usual- and yes to Peter D. EVERY PIECE of SherifF equipment comes out including the 12 foot blow up doll of Si himself! The best thing that we always would do- is raise our wine glasses (yes west siders do drink wine and eat cheese while watching the parade- and it isn’t screw top!) at him while he walks by knowing that he can’t do a damn thing to us! Open containers on the street! It is our own private rebellion! And those w/ beer have been known to walk out and ask him if he’d like one!
13 Sep 2007 at 11:31 am | #
I am not an attorney but i do have years of experience working on political campaigns and dancing around issues like this.
and my point is that it says “support the new jail” NEVER is the levy mentioned. legally since he didnt call for support of the levy or a vote for the levy he is fine legally. I will bet anyone on this site any amount of money that I am correct.
you are getting closer to the point. Now as soon as you see that the levy isnt ever mentioned anywhere you will put everything together and realize that SI has danced the dance perfectly legal. Might not be ethical but it is legal.
as soon as SI has a sign that says “vote for the levy” or “yes on issues whatever” you will have him doing something illegal until then you dont
13 Sep 2007 at 11:34 am | #
I understand it perfectly. I realize that Si was using the signs to promote the levy passage. No question about it. My point is that he did not “break the law” as has been alleged. He kept everything legal. If you are going to accuse someone of breaking the law (especially a former prosecutor and current sheriff) you cross your t’s and dot your i’s because you can bet he did.
13 Sep 2007 at 10:06 pm | #
Actually, I, too, have been involved in a few campaigns where we made certain that we conformed to the laws. And formerly f still hasn’t provided a reference.
From the Ohio Administrative Code, Section 111-3-02:
Formerly f seems to be arguing (though he is very weak in providing references other than his anonymous self), that the fact that only the definition for “clearly identified candidate” appears in this section is significant. The definition for “clearly identified ballot issue” did not appear. But that is supposing that the phrase “clearly identified” also modifies “ballot issue.” On this hangs formerly f’s logic. To answer this:
One: If the phrase “clearly identified” were indeed meant to modify “ballot issue,” then the phrase “clearly identified ballot issue” would be included in the definitions. But it does not, therefore one does not need to “clearly identify” the ballot issue before the code applies.
Two: If one were to argue that the phrase “clearly identified ballot issue” was not specifically defined because its meaning would be clear from the remainder of the section, then one must suppose that the principle of being “otherwise apparent” as is done in the definition of “clearly identified candidate” also applies.
So therefore we have the sheriff’s activities being included in the definition of campaigning in the section on independent expenditures. And of course, that is precisely the problem. The sheriff is not authorized to make independent expenditures on behalf of the campaign.
Therefore what the sheriff did is not only unethical (to which formerly f agrees) but also illegal.
14 Sep 2007 at 06:46 pm | #
Time for him to go. This may do it!