Should a “misdemeanor offender” be required to participate in a program designed for serious felony offenders…
The title of this post is the basic issue of what transpired in the Lucas County Courtroom of Judge Linda Jennings today, I’m not sure on how the other media will report this, and if the last coverage is any indication? That part of the story, which is the real part of the story won’t be covered.
We have a scenario where a no contest plea was entered on three misdemeanor charges, none related to sexual contact with a minor, where probation was required and an agreement, which is pretty standard, that treatment determined as appropriate would be followed. The problem comes in this scenario as to was the treatment demanded appropriate, while trying to question this the person was charged with a probation violation. There was professional psychiatric documentation that stated it was not, that was ignored in favor of an assessment done by Court Diagnostic Treatment that was in part disputed. Letters in support written to the judge were ignored, with the basic decision today being either attend a class designed for serious felony sexual offenders where the person was going to end up having issues because there was no way for him to accept responsibility/receive treatment for a condition he did not suffer from or go to jail for six months.
Knowing the type of evidence that was submitted to Judge Jennings, it’s hard to see how that could have not had any impact on this process. Discounting letters from the community is one thing, but to discount the testing and the opinion of a licensed professional is another. How someone who has not been convicted or pled to having sexual contact with minors is going to benefit from a program that is designed and attended by those who have serious sexual felony offenses and who battle on a regular basis their “desires” has never been demonstrated by the Court. The reality is treatment as a part of probation is supposed to be designed to “help” that person it’s not supposed to be used as a way to try to humiliate or demean or punish them or to place them in a situation where they will violate the terms of the program unless they are willing to lie.
So, if you read or watch news about a friend of mine, Richard Brown, today or tomorrow, you’ll at least know that as most situations, there is more to the story. It’d be easy to try to discount my thoughts based on the fact I’ve been honest about my friendship with him, that is however only possible if you ignore the evidence, ignore the documentation and ignore the very basic point that a minor misdemeanor offender that has neither admitted nor pled to charges of sexual misconduct with minors doesn’t belong nor will be helped by sitting in a group full of convicted felony sex offenders. If there was some concern that he needed counseling of some sort? That could easily be addressed in a manner more appropriate “for the crime
Our wonderful court system at work again…what’s next? Is this a set up so she can send him to jail? hmmmm lets watch how this unfolds on March 4th.
February 4th, 2009 at 3:10 pmThat’s my fear, that by demanding he participate in a program that is designed for serious sexual offenders that it’s creating a scenario where after dragging this on for many more months that when it’s determined that he didn’t cooperate with the program because he can’t, unless he lies and admits to having thoughts or feelings he doesn’t have that she’ll then put him in jail for the full six month sentence.
The judge is creating a scenario where he will fail to meet the conditions set up, and it’s impossible to ignore the facts as well as the impression that she is very well aware that this will happen.
February 4th, 2009 at 3:21 pmit’s amazing that this blatant discrimination can take place and the judge be portrayed as “god” because they stand in that black robe. Well, i hope people are watching. She’s got to run again so, they better get ready to have somebody good running against her. This is horrible. What a waste of our taxpayer dollars
February 4th, 2009 at 3:26 pmIt’s been a very disheartening experience to have closely followed this from the very beginning. It really challenges my belief in our system and how the system is supposed to work versus how it works in reality.
The cost to the taxpayers is one part of it, but it’s also hard to ignore the fact that if this is happening in this case, how many others out there don’t have anyone willing to stand up and say, “this is wrong.”
February 4th, 2009 at 3:34 pmIt is really sad because in the beginning of this case I thought Judge Jennings would be a fair judge. Instead she’s done nothing but push the agenda of the prosecutor’s office. I wish an investigation would be done. She is biased and racist. I can’t wait for ELECTION time. Groups will be gathering during that time to send a message. She thinks she knows Richard, describes him as arrogant. She doesn’t have a clue what kind of turmoil he and his family have gone through over the last 2 years. BUT I believe God will have the final say.
February 4th, 2009 at 4:16 pmI did too, I believed that considering the facts that what has happened would have never have happened.
February 4th, 2009 at 4:34 pmSome of the black clergy are going to meet and she will not be able to get into the central city churches when it is campaign time. A few of the pastors who wrote letters on Richards behalf were in court today and they are not happy. This is utterly ridiculous that a misdemeanor would have to sit in the same group session as a felon. Just the absolute thought…
February 4th, 2009 at 4:42 pmI wonder if there is a way to find out what the statistics are on how many felons are in this course versus how many misdemeanors have to take this group therapy. It’s ludicrous but hey, I guess, what’s up with the civil suit? Has anyone heard? Has anything been filed yet? Heads should roll for this mockery of the system.
February 4th, 2009 at 4:49 pmLast I heard it should be filed soon, but it’s easy to understand why Richard’s focus would not be on that right now considering this scenario. I’d like to know how many people charged with misdemeanor offenses that were not related to sexual contact had to take this course that was designed for felony sex offenders. From my understanding of it, this is not common. It’s more than that though, it’s the fact that a licensed professional presented testing and diagnostic information to the Court that showed not only was Court Treatment and Diagnostic wrong, but that this as a treatment demand was wrong.
Richard was not convicted, nor pled no contest to charges that involved sexual contact with a minor or any inappropriate sexual contact for that matter.
February 4th, 2009 at 4:59 pmSomeone told me about this courtroom action today and I found it sooo hard to believe..I thought by the time 2009 rolled around some of these onesided racist acts would be curtailed by some of the judges in the Toledo area…..This judge sounds like she is making it up as she goes. When did misdemeanor offenses do the same type of program as felons…Oh I forgot, this is Toledo good luck to you folks caught up in the system. When does this Judge run for office again?
February 4th, 2009 at 5:06 pmI believe it’s a 6 year term and she started this term in January of 07.
February 4th, 2009 at 5:22 pmThat is correct Lisa…
February 4th, 2009 at 5:26 pmFrom Lisa: it’s the fact that a licensed professional presented testing and diagnostic information to the Court that showed not only was Court Treatment and Diagnostic wrong, but that this as a treatment demand was wrong.
Judge Linda Jennings may well be racially prejudice. This doesn’t preclude Richard Brown from acting like an arrogant smart-mouthed teenager – which, if he did so, will do more to damage his situation than almost any amount of discrimination. Judges tend to be arrogant past the point of hubris, and anyone who wants a favorable outcome had better understand exactly how to placate and curry favor with Judge Judy. For anyone who has seen Judge Judy and wondered about her behavior, the answer is an emphatic affirmative. Judges really do behave that way in real life and nothing is ever done about it.
On top of all this, any licensed mental health professional has to have superb credentials and, more importantly, be able to present their findings in a clear, concise manner. Judges know law (we hope). Judges know very little about mental health and treatment. Anything the expert witness testifies about has to be presented so as to impress a bored and not very bright layman (layperson?). Look at this objectively and ask yourself if that’s what happened here.
It’s likely that the judge is going to be familiar with the person giving the testimony about court diagnostic treatment, and so will give more credibility to that opinion. That’s what the other professional has to overcome.
One question I have is the plea of no contest instead of not guilty. Why the no contest plea? Also, where was the attorney for the defense in all this?
February 4th, 2009 at 5:28 pmIf part of the plea deal was to pay court costs, he should not be given a pass because he is a nice guy and a friend. Pay up, if that is part of the sentence. Some people are calling Judge Jennings a racist and I am shaking my head over that. It is extremely hard for someone to fight a charge of being called a racist. I have known Judge Jennings for many years and I have always found her to treat people with honor and respect. The judge did not file the charges against Mr. Brown, nor did she enter a plea to the charges-those were actions taken between Mr. Brown and the prosecutor’s office.
February 4th, 2009 at 5:35 pmRon Korsog – how do explain the treatment portion of his sentence? The misdemeanors were not for the activity he is to be treated for and if I understand this correctly, he has to admit to certain feeling and actions which he can’t do without lying. If he fails to successfully complete the program, then it’s off to jail which seems to be where this is headed. Regardless of his behavior, arrogant or not, should not the sentence match the crime?
Paint me confused!
February 4th, 2009 at 5:49 pmUnless you were there MadJack, you have no idea how Richard acted, arrogant would not be the way to describe what I’ve personally witnessed, nor is it arrogant to question being demanded to attend a treatment program that you know is not designed for anything remotely connected to what you agreed to plead to. He did not just refuse, he tried, he had concerns and he has openly stated what those concerns were to everyone, including the probation department and the Judge.
His attorney was there today, this is up to the Judge and she is adamant that Richard should attend this felony class and is not open to any alternative suggestions. The mental health professional in question does meet the standards required, at a much higher professional level than the person who did the diagnostic for the Court. If there was any doubt? There are standards within the system to address that.
As to the fines, it’s a bit difficult to pay fines when you have lost your employment, which if you remember, was an additional scenario that happened. Richard Brown is one of the few City employees to be convicted of misdemeanors and not be allowed to continue working.
The fines were an additional issue, not the major one that created the accusation of the probation violation.
Ron, having spent hours in that Court Room, I have not said the Judge is racist, however, it’s clear in this case that part of the problem is she is expecting Richard to confess to something he not only did not do, but is at a higher level than the charges he did agree to plead too. We’ve already hashed and re-hashed should he have even taken the plea deal, that can’t be undone.
I do however, understand why some in the community would have the impression that it is because of Richard’s race and other personal factors that would create him being discriminated against. Scenarios like today don’t help diminish that impression.
February 4th, 2009 at 5:50 pmwell Ron, her actions speak louder than her words. For someone who has followed this entire case from start to finish, Jennings has done nothing but allowed the Prosecutor’s office to “hem haw” all the way through this mess. Richard did take the plea because he wanted to move on with his life, however, this offender program was NOT apart of the plea. He sought PROFESSIONAL help on his own to deal with the stress, financial strain, depression, etc. court diagnostic probably can’t help out in that area, they are more preoccupied with offenses and not the well-being entirely of the individual. I know a lot more which I can’t share but there is a lot more than is seen.
You may be right about Jennings, she may be a nice individual, I don’t know and don’t care to know, but what I can say is after having sat in a multiple number of courtrooms, the prosecution is allowed alot more latitude than other more seasoned judges allow.
February 4th, 2009 at 5:53 pmHaving worked in a progam that treats such offenders, there is going to be more than meets the public eye. And, yes, judges DO have the latitude to recommend treatment for those they feel may benefit from treatment, whether it is to work through current issues, or to ‘prevent’ relapses.
Whether we find out the whole truth is immaterial. There are young people who have been effected by this case, as has the family of Mr. Brown.
Sadly, there have been others in our community accused of far lesser offenses who are vilified for perceived misdeeds.
There are many docket entries which can shed some light onto this particular case. Just look at the April 30, 2008, September 24, 2008, January 24,2009 and the entry from today. I am including a link to the docket; what follows is today’s entry.
http://apps.co.lucas.oh.us/onlinedockets/Docket.aspx?STYPE=1&PAR=CR200801680-000&STARTDATE=01/01/1900&ENDDATE=01/01/2100&PARTY=0
2/4/2009 1 Title : PROB VIOL ADMIT/SENT CONTINUED
788-03669 issued by 177 ()
On February 04, 2009 matter called for a Probation violation hearing. Court reporter Kendra Carroll, defensevattorney RONNIE L. WINGATE and the State’s attorney ANDREW LASTRA were present. Defendant, RICHARD BROWN present in court.
Defendant having admitted to a Probation violation and having waived oral hearing, is found in violation of the probation.
Matter continued for sentencing to Wednesday, March 4, 2009, at 9:00 a.m. The Lucas County Adult Probation Department shall provide the Court with an updated report regarding Defendant’s compliance with the terms and conditions of probation.
February 4th, 2009 at 7:34 pmBond continued.
JUDGE LINDA J JENNINGS
PARTY : D1 – BROWN RICHARD
That doesn’t demonstrate anything Henri, no one is disputing he was charged with a probation violation. The online docket, which I’ve read many times during the course of this doesn’t provide any of the details, how he went to the treatment program, how he realized it was felony sexual offenders who describe in great detail their problems and how he went to probation as well as the judge to try to find out why that treatment program was the one selected and what he did to try to avoid being charged with the violation. It was attend or violate, it was hoped that if the judge was aware of the accurate diagnostic evaluation as well as the concerns, this would be resolved.
That didn’t happen. No one can explain nor has explained the logic of requiring this particular treatment program because it not only does not fit the sentence, it’s not appropriate for someone who was not convicted, plead, etc., to any type of inappropriate sexual contact.
February 4th, 2009 at 8:05 pmBates wrote:
And who’s playing the race card now? Again, just because you don’t agree with the sentencing, does not mean the judge is racist!
This treament is designed for offenders regardless of class of offense. Sexual offenders are sexual offenders. Period, the end. Don’t tell me there is a difference, after having read the files of my former charges who required said treatment, at court order I might add. (Much of which was to avoid imminent incarceration)
February 4th, 2009 at 9:38 pmHe’s not a sexual offender a bit of information which is something even if the media doesn’t report the full details has managed to report correctly. There was no conviction or plea related to any sexual contact, misdemeanor or felony nor were there any demonstration that who the court defined as victims required any treatment nor was there any evidence of harm, which is how the whole scenario came down to emails and a box of old porn that teenage males found without permission.
February 4th, 2009 at 9:43 pmLisa-
He entered a plea, as recorded on March 28, 2008.
Here’s the link too; http://apps.co.lucas.oh.us/onlinedockets/Docket.aspx?STYPE=1&PAR=CR200801680-000&STARTDATE=01/01/1900&ENDDATE=01/01/2100&PARTY=0
3/28/2008 7 Title : INFO/PRE SB2 PLEA ENTERED
798-00954 issued by 177 ()
March 28, 2008. Court Reporter Kendra Lake, Assistant
Prosecutor TIM BRAUN and JENNIFER LAMBDIN. RONNIE L.
WINGATE and ETHAN OGLE on behalf of Defendant, and
Defendant RICHARD BROWN present in court.
Defendant advised of nature of charge and right to grand
jury presentment. Defendant, orally and in writing,
waived prosecution by indictment. Written waiver ordered
filed.
Defendant acknowledged receipt of a copy of information,
February 4th, 2009 at 9:52 pmwaived any defects as to time, place or manner of service,
and waived its reading in open Court. Defendant entered a
plea of No Contest to the offenses of Procuring, counts
one and two, each in violation of R.C. 2907.23(A)(1)&(C),
each being a misdemeanor of the first degree; and
Disseminating Matter Harmful to Juveniles, count three, in
violation of R.C. 2907.31(A)(1)&(F), a misdemeanor of the
first degree. Pursuant to statements made by the State of
Ohio, plea accepted. Defendant found guilty.
Henri, where did I say he didn’t plead? What I said was neither count involved sexual misconduct with a minor, unless you are going to try to argue leaving a box of porn somehow constitutes sexual misconduct.
I realize that you seem to take the opposite position of whatever I write, but seriously, I know the facts of this case, I was at almost every single hearing, I’ve seen the actual evidence, and the point is he was not convicted of a felony nor a charge that would warrant attending a class of severe felony sexual offenders. It’s that simple.
February 4th, 2009 at 9:55 pmAgain, we are happy this ‘unconvicted’ felon is in your benevolency, yet others are still wanting…
February 4th, 2009 at 9:59 pm“We?” Are there more of you? Is there a collective that makes up the Henri? That’s pretty scary.
Stick around, I tend to focus on topics like this on a regular basis and perhaps someday we’ll find something we agree on.
February 4th, 2009 at 10:04 pmSorry, I was speaking in the royal ‘we’.
So, I get to look to your defense of alledged child molestors in the future?
February 4th, 2009 at 10:12 pmI didn’t realize I was dealing with royalty, perhaps that’s part of the problem. I could, I could also focus on some that are actually convicted though typically I focus on those who have been wronged by the system. Or those who the media is not quite sharing all of the details on. Typically women who have been abused by not only men but the courts and those who don’t have anyone willing to stand up and deal with the poo people throw when you point out things that just might make you wonder about how fair or equal our system is. I’ll also continue to be honest when I know I have a personal relationship with someone and not hide behind screen names while I do it.
Sweet dreams Your Highness Henri, tomorrow is another day and I’m sure I’ll post something that you’ll take issue with tomorrow.
February 4th, 2009 at 10:17 pmI often forget I descend from nobles too, so all is forgiven for your oversight.
February 4th, 2009 at 10:35 pmHowevever, we nobles do frown on those who behave like Michael Jackson at a Little League World Series…
My family has traces to royalty as well, though I’m more fond of the ones who did things like be the first commander of the American Revolution. Rebelling seems to be naturally in my blood when it comes to a desire to point out the truth and hypocrisy. Perhaps like my many great times grandfather, I’m designed to be a better political leader than as a soldier.
February 4th, 2009 at 10:48 pmSo, do you think the “King of Pop” considers himself royalty too?
February 4th, 2009 at 10:56 pmI have no idea, but if I ever interview him, I’ll be sure to ask.
February 4th, 2009 at 11:08 pmSo, does that mean you think Mr. Brown considers himself royalty, or more like the “King of Pop”?
February 4th, 2009 at 11:12 pmI’d say neither, I don’t typically find either types of those people the sort I’d want to be friends with. I think we’ve gone far enough off the original topic for one night and I have other posts to do before I sleep.
February 4th, 2009 at 11:15 pmDitto.
I have to go to sleep as well. I have a job to go to, and a car payment to make!
February 4th, 2009 at 11:18 pmI must profess that I did not pay too much attention to this case when it was first publicized but I was perplexed when Mr. Brown entered a no contest plea as part of a plea bargain. If my name was even mentioned in the same sentence with words like “procurinng” and “disseminating matter to juveniles,” I would climb the highest mountain I could find and profess my innocence to anyone whom would listen. I would demand my day in court so that I could clear my good name. I am just saying…
February 5th, 2009 at 10:06 amHindsight is a beautiful virtue Ron, and if you were already convinced that the process was not going to be fair, you had spent months fighting this with not just the financial but the emotional impact on your family, you might take a plea deal believing it would end. That you would try to pick up the pieces of your life and move on. Especially if you had been given the impression that you would still have a job to return to as long as there were no felony charges. Since I was there through the whole process, I know first hand how difficult the decision was to accept this particular plea deal, which was not the first one made.
That can not be undone now, so we are left with dealing with the present.
This situation is made much more difficult by the horrible reporting, one news station reporting that Brown pled to showing children pornography in church, and was procuring prostitution with minors, which is so far from the truth, I hope they are sued for it.
February 5th, 2009 at 10:13 amThe way I understand this is that Richard Brown III was an associate minister at Friendship Baptist Church along with being an endorsed Democratic candidate for the Toledo school board.
Richard was arrested and pled no contest to the charges of procuring and disseminating harmful information to a minor. In other words he solicited the services of a prostitute and showed pornography to boys under 18. Richard was represented by an attorney, declined a trial and was sentenced to probation. So long as Richard complies with the terms of his probation, he can stay out of jail. That was all explained to Richard up front.
This man was serving as an associate minister. How is it that Richard has pornography on his computer? Or pornographic DVDs in his home?
Richard Brown got off easy. Neither you nor Richard have any legitimate complaint with this sentence or the treatment recommended by the court.
February 5th, 2009 at 11:20 amActually you don’t understand the case properly, which is besides the point at this juncture. Considering I actually was in court, saw all of the evidence and have much more information than the media has reported, I have every right to raise legitimate complaints/concerns with a process that requires a treatment program involving felony sexual offenders for a misdemeanor offender. Unless you are the judge or were involved in the case in some manner, where you’d like to counter what I personally observed/saw; I’d suggest that I have every right to express my opinion and at least I’m doing it in a venue where you have the same right to disagree with me.
February 5th, 2009 at 11:46 amActually you don’t understand the case properly
Actually, I think I do. Understanding the case is not beside the point at all, and since you were present during the court proceedings then tell me, were Richard Brown’s civil rights violated somehow? Was he denied council?
Since you “saw all of the evidence and have much more information than the media has reported”, maybe you can enlighten me when I ask, again:
This man was serving as an associate minister and a youth pastor. How is it that Richard Brown has pornography on his computer? Or pornographic DVDs in his home? Can you answer that, Lisa?
Richard Brown is free to walk around town as he likes. The fact that Richard is forced to associate with or get treatment with a group of felons is not unfair. Richard doesn’t have to sit in prison with these felons. Richard doesn’t have to sit in prison at all. Richard Brown III is getting off easy.
February 5th, 2009 at 1:15 pmWell I support Richard Brown 100%
February 5th, 2009 at 7:58 pmWhile I don’t know Richard Brown at all, this post disturbs me greatly. Richard Brown pleaded to three M1’s. This is equivalent of 3 DUI’s at the same time. It is reasonable, under the circumstances, that a judge would be so benevolent as to suspend such a possible 18th month jail sentence, let alone to rule it concurrent. It is also reasonable to create probation. If you violate your probation, well that’s your own fault no matter the terms. I didn’t realize there was a difference between friends of Lisa Renee who are convicted of M1’s and those who sinfully receive those sinful traffic tickets.
While I will abhorrently disagree with anyone who calls one of our local judges a racist(except for maybe one, but it is not Jennings), I urge the black churches lay down their arms. I urge them to address this issue, properly. If you know the terms of your contract with the court, I suggest you follow them. Otherwise, you might be in the same situation Mr. Brown is. Furthermore, Ms. Ward’s contention that she’s seen all of the evidence is ridiculous. The prosecution never had any need to present their full case, and I can guarantee that they never presented all of their evidence. Ms. Ward, as usual, is a liar.
February 6th, 2009 at 2:31 amProgressive: That is more than a little harsh. LisaRenee might be called an overzealous friend but never, ever a liar. I may disagree with her from time to time, but I respect her right to have an opposite opinion as she does mine. Name calling is never appropriate.
February 6th, 2009 at 9:37 amProgressive: Because the prosecution never had to present its case we surely don’t know how strong a case it would have been. Richard choose for many reasons to a deal in order to risk conviction on a felony. Many have done the same thing, but that does not make them guilty of the original charge.
As to calling Lisa a liar, I’m not sure you made a very good case. I would say the only evidence she might not have seen would have been anything the prosecution did not present. So what might that have been? Not being a lawyer I’m relying on my general knowledge of what I have seen and heard, but isn’t the defense attorney privileged to see all the evidence that the prosecution has, except of course for testimony of witnesses because they did not testify. But even in those cases, there may be additional documentation. So if the defense attorney saw the evidence it is very likely the defendant knew what the evidence was and as a friend of Lisa, may have shared it. If this is correct, then liar is not an accurate in defining the comments she made here.
February 6th, 2009 at 9:56 amMadJack, sorry your post ended up in moderation for some reason, it was probably one of the words used in your post that triggered it, and I didn’t see that until this morning.
It seems rather pointless to continue to debate what you’d like to turn this thread into, which is to rehash the original case that has nothing to do with this current situation beyond pointing out that some of our local media has reported the story incorrectly.
Richard admitted he sent emails to friends in 1999 and 2000 that if taken out of context could appear to be inappropriate, these were adult friends not minors. He also admitted that there was a box of pornography in a closet and with the teenage boys having unsupervised time in the room it was possible they could have gotten access to it. That’s the general basics of what happened.
Some of the pornographic items came from parents who after finding that material asked him to get rid of it, none of it was illegal material. Some was older material, as pointed out, it is not illegal to own pornography, even if you are a minister, though from my understanding it was not his personal “porn stash.” He obviously didn’t feel he had anything to hide since he was aware of the questions/possible charges well before the police came to search his home. The charges he pled to came as a result of the police search, none of them were related to what he was originally charged with.
Logic would dictate if you thought you had something to hide, considering the time frame, you’d not only go through your home but you’d dispose the old hard drive, it’s not as if any things on that were hidden. The prosecutor’s office did not have to hire computer experts to go into that hard drive and another computer in the home had crashed, so it did have a clean drive, so it’s clear he had access to people that knew how to reformat a pc, the material he ended up pleading to related to the procuring, was from an older hard drive that was just sitting there, those were the older emails from 1999 to 2000.
Kurt, considering you are an attorney, I don’t think it’s smart to call me a liar, nor would I make that up, I did see the evidence that came from the hard drive, I actually copied it upon Richard’s request so he could give a copy of it to his attorney related to the civil case. Perhaps one of the other lawyers that read the blog can contact me as far as the legal ramifications of a licensed attorney calling someone a liar related to slander/libel.
I’ve clearly not called Judge Jennings a racist, and I realize that is a serious accusation that has been made here at times by others. I’ve clearly stated my thoughts on that but why I can understand they would have the impression that he is being discriminated against.
February 6th, 2009 at 9:58 amRon and Steven, thanks, I debated putting Kurt’s comment on the blog, but I think people need to see him for what he is and the type of accusations he’s making.
February 6th, 2009 at 10:21 amAnd yet, progressivetoledo is right, Lisa.
There are two classes of people on your blog, one class who is pilloried for parking tickets, and the other class, who is championed as political prisoners for the “misunderstanding” of procuring & pornography.
But, it’s your blog, Lisa, you run it the way you want.
And, while I wouldn’t pretend to comment of the validity of your being a liar, I will argue that you could be guilty of “puffing” the facts.
February 6th, 2009 at 10:54 amMadJack-
Don’t feel so bad about being moderated, you aren’t the only one.
February 6th, 2009 at 10:58 amInteresting suggestion Henri, if I suggested that Richard’s case should not be covered by the media, which I have not, then perhaps you and Kurt would be correct, that was the basis of concern related to charges that were more than just traffic incidents, which I did fairly and equally concerning all. It was the selectivity of the media in who’s record they found report worthy and who’s they did not that started that whole scenario. I find it interesting that putting stories out there, even when they involve friends knowing that there will be those like you who will comment negatively as being considered “puffing the facts” if anything, it’s the opposite. It’s an attempt to get as much information out there, knowing that not everyone will agree with me but so that they are at least able to make their own informed decision.
In this particular situation, as well as others, I do happen to have more information than the majority of those commenting here. That’s a simple fact.
Considering Kurt is/was the legal representative of some of those who did have information blogged about, I understand his natural bias when it comes to that. I fully know what to expect when I post on certain topics, it’s become a pattern, raise questions, be attacked/besmirched for asking the questions. However the larger goal is to share the information and be as honest as I can be, whether it involves someone I am friends with or someone who has expressed hatred towards me. I think I do a pretty good job in trying to be fair and balanced in my approach and since I don’t hide who I am nor do I hide the truth as far as my personal relationships when they can impact a story? I’m providing more disclosure than many of those who decide to make me the focus.
February 6th, 2009 at 11:07 amYes, Henri, I’m sure the wordpress software picking up the word “pornography” selectively picked out only you and MadJack to put into moderation. I do my best to check to see any comments that end up in moderation are approved, including yours, MadJack’s and even Kurt’s.
Believe it or not, spamfighting software can’t tell the difference between the usage of a word.
February 6th, 2009 at 11:21 amWell I see this topic brought out a troll barrage
I have been following this case. It’s a situation that many people have had as normal operating procedure in their life.
Volunteered with local youth, kept some Playboys in a box, sent some off colored emails……
People in glass houses shouldn’t throw so many rocks.
And I believe that the way this judge has handled the situation is appalling. Just appalling. I voted for her and not only will I not vote for her again, I’ll make sure my group has all the facts about her conduct on the bench. I’ll cost her every vote I can. I think it’s very clear that she doesn’t belong on the bench if she’s going to use her position to engage in enabling this kind of political maneuvering. And that’s all this has been.
This man is being punished for having run against Jack Ford in the last election. Plain and simple.
February 6th, 2009 at 11:47 amTo be fair, Richard did not run against Jack, Jack came in to the race after Richard pulled out of the election. It’s is known there were some who did not want Richard to run and/or wanted him to pull out of the election sooner than he did.
The question of would any of this have happened had he not ran for school board is one that has been asked, it’s an impossible question to answer it can only be speculated on at this point.
February 6th, 2009 at 11:53 amRichard stayed in the race after Jack entered. Then this all happened and it is a ridiculous case.
I have finished speculating here…this was a message sent to a guy who didn’t do what the good ol’ boy network wanted him to.
And I think there’s alot of that in Toledo. Far too much.
February 6th, 2009 at 12:03 pmJack was appointed in June of 2007, to the School Board in part because he stated he was not going to run for office, Richard stepped down in September 2007, Ford filed his paperwork in August but he did not do his first campaign appearance until after Richard was out of the race. So Richard did not run against Jack. Jack talked about running before then, it was in both the Sojourner’s Truth and the Toledo Journal.
So while you are correct that there was a brief time both were “in” the race it was not an active campaign scenario.
Was part of this related to a desire to have Ford not only be the candidate but to better his chances of winning is something that has been speculated and some believe has merit. I’m trying very hard to only share what I actually have seen documentation on.
February 6th, 2009 at 12:28 pmIt was strongly suggested to Richard by many of the “powers that be” to wait his time and back out of the election or some terrible things would come out against him. Those threats began in June and continued thru September when he was finally indicted. Kateb you are right on the mark with what happened and it is a travesty that a person could lose everything just for trying to step up and help the community through a challenging economic time.
February 6th, 2009 at 1:49 pmPeople will think what they want, and Richard, if he knew then what he knows now, probably would have stepped aside to do other things but he honestly felt that he was the best one to help the School board because he did tell people the way he felt and was not the “team” player that alot of people wanted him to be. Who knows what could have been, but the good ole boy network had to move him out the way at whatever cost.
I guess my point is, at this juncture even if that could be proven beyond a reasonable doubt, it doesn’t change what happened or what is happening right now. We are still left with the question of no matter who it is, Richard or not, being ordered to attend a class for felony sex offenders.
All of that may come up later but at this point it doesn’t help Richard, if anything it just creates the opposite affect of people focusing on the past as opposed to what he really pleaded to, and what’s happened since.
February 6th, 2009 at 2:13 pmThis whole situation started out looking bad and has gotten worse ever since. The entire “justice” system has failed and between the prosecutor and judge they have given our city and county a black-eye by playing by someone else’s rules instead of what the right standards are and by making complete fools of themselves by continuing this nonsense. Yes, I agree that all will come out in the end and it won’t look peachy for the judge or any other individuals involved and or prospered from this whole debacle.
February 6th, 2009 at 2:57 pmLisaRenee wrote:
I know you make every effort to be fair and keep your own opinion out of this. And that’s why this is a great blog. But I don’t have to be objective….and I know what I know. I’m glad I live in a country where I can say what I think. And I’m glad I’m seasoned enough that I don’t care if too many people like it or not
February 6th, 2009 at 3:50 pm