Ex-county investigator convicted of theft
The man who made off with $2,817 in 1996 under Joe Deters' watch has taken the deal. If Joe couldn't account for money in a locked property room, how can he handle the State of Ohio's money?

Church accused of hiding evidence
Gun Nuts get off, but the Catholic Church gets the third degree. Is this bizzaro world? Nope, this is a fundamentalist Christian's wet dream.

Bronson: One man who made a stand
Peter does his best to wave the flag of gun nuts everywhere. The quote that sticks out in my mind most is this from Mr. McKinny:

"That law about guns in a bar sure didn't stop those guys," he said. "

I guess this is what we should expect if the conceal and carry law passes. Even if that law does not allow people to carry guns onto private property where they are not allowed to carry guns by law, like bars and schools, then people like Mr. McKinney will not adhere to the those laws. If Mr. McKinny can't be indicted on a gun law now, why can I expect that gun nuts who break the law will ever be charged for carrying around their gun where ever they damn well please? It has been almost 200 years since Cincinnati was considered the "West." Well the Wild West was out in force in a Northside Saloon, and Frontier Justice is ruling supreme. Where is Wyatt Earp when you need him?

New publisher named for Enquirer
Interesting News. I am not knowledgeable enough on the interworkings of newspapers, but I have to give Margaret Buchanan the benefit of the doubt mainly because she worked at the newspaper in the town where I was born, Elmira, N.Y., at the Star-Gazette.

This real issue to watch for is will the Enquirer start charging for online content. Let us hope no, but if that what it takes to keep it afloat, I think the print media is doom. The Enquirer has many many faults, but it is really the only semi-comprehensive news source for this region. All other outlets piggyback on it. I would wish that the Mrs. Buchanan pushes to increase it reporting staff, especially reporting from Columbus on State Government.

Texas agency destroyed records related to search for Democrats
What are the odds that the nation media picks up on this issue? I would say 1 to 3 against. What are the odds that there is any kind of either State or Federated investigation into this? I would say 1 to 20 against. What are the odds that anyone who dares to raise this as a political issue being labeled unpatriotic? I would say 1 to 1; take it to the bank.

[Link via Atrios]

Captain Nate vs. Moby Farrakhan?
For some bizarre reason Nate Livingston is pushing for an investigation into a member of the Nation of Islam because he claims that person "did not report her earnings or pay her taxed to the city of Cincinnati, Hamilton County, the State of Ohio, or the United States government." Ms. Ava Muhammad reportedly broke the boycott and gave a speech at an event here in Cincinnati. Nate has written letters to various public officials of each entity mentioned above. Nate needs to check up on a few things. Regarding Cincinnati Law, when I read § 311-15 Exception to the Tax it starts off with one line “The tax provided for herein shall not be levied upon the following:” and then paragraph (h)

on the compensation of an individual if all of the following apply: (1) the individual does not reside in the city of Cincinnati; (2) the compensation is paid for personal services performed by the individual in the city of Cincinnati on twelve or fewer days in the calendar year; (3) in the case of an individual who is an employee, the principal place of business of the individual's employer is located outside of the city of Cincinnati and the individual pays tax on the compensation described in subsection (2) of this section to the city, if any, in which the employer's principal place of business is located, and no portion of that tax is refunded to the individual.

seems to indicate that Ms. Muhammad does not have to pay Cincinnati income tax, unless she earns income here for 11 or more additional days this year.

The main issue that Nate seems to miss, is that this is income is for 2003. The group who paid Ms. Muhammad does not have to immediately report that income to any government this soon, because she is not their employee. They may very have to report it, but not this quickly, and it is not Ms. Muhammad’s responsibility to report it until she files her tax returns for 2003 next April, which is why I assume Nate is going after Victoria Straughn.

Also, for the record, you don’t have to report income to Hamilton County. They don’t lay taxes on income.

Nate is oddly attacking groups that other members of his crowd would logically support. What is comical is that Nate is calling the CCFJ (Coalition of Concerned Citizens for Justice) a “gang.” He claims groups like the Nation of Islam and CCFJ “have threatened to commit vicious and violent acts against anyone who opposes them.” There are members of Nate’s boycott B “gang”, including Nate himself, that one might argue the same could be true. That is either ironic, or hypocritical or both.

Bearcats' Hicks is suspended
I hate to say it, but this is nothing new to the Cincinnati Bearcats. What I wonder is, now that the Cinco de Mayo Six might get booted, this basketball player might get booted, but when you read this

"University of Cincinnati sophomore quarterback Gino Guidugli was arrested Sunday for the second time in four months after he allegedly punched an opponent in an intramural basketball game."

but you don't here anyone asking if he violated school policy, I have to wonder why he is special? How many other basketball players did things wrong, but did not get expelled from UC? This incident alledged took place on UC campus, so all bets are off, this is covered by school rules no question. Will UC do the right thing and expel Gudugli? I will not hold my breath. {Full Disclosure: I am a Miami grad, so I am slightly biased.}

Boycott coalition targets concert
The concert still went on despite a lawsuit and the usual mini-carnival of militant racist boycotters.

An "Unindicted" Folk Hero
Chris Anderson comments on what some are calling the Northside Vigilante. Prosecutor Mike Allen was on 1230 the Buzz today, giving a typically bland performance. Mike has big balls. He dismissed the obvious fact that Mr. McKinney clearly was carrying a gun in a liquor establishment, a crime. He weakly tried to rationalize the grand jury's decision based upon being presented all of the affirmative defenses Mr. McKinney could employ. Couple this erroneous claim with the contention on the Buzz that only one gun was found at the scene. Mike could have easily refuted that claim, but instead of claiming he could not answer that under law, he said that he really did not know the facts of the case well enough to answer. This case smells bad. The case was a slam-dunk light sentence, but it still should have gone to trial. This does nothing but provide fodder to the criticism of the Justice System. If this man was not a Citizens on Patrol Program member he would have been indicted, and Mike Allen’s office would have gotten it done. The old cliché is more often than not true; the DA can get a ham sandwich indicted. In this case he could not get a soon to be NRA poster boy indicted. Guns for all, justice for the gun owner, and screw the rest.

Because things like this tick me off
Matt Weiler has a problem with the City of Chicago's snub of Cincinnati in its names of streets. Other Ohio cities are represented, but not Cincinnati. I think we should boycott Chicago until this injustice is overcome.

BRONSON: Justified shooting by a 'guardian angel'
Another conservative who seems to have abandoned any pretense of supporting the rule of law. Laws seem to be avoidable if you happen to break one that opposes the cause celeb of the gun lobby.

I again understand not charging the man with assault. I don't agree with it, but I understand it. I do not understand not indicting him on the charge of possession of a firearm in a liquor establishment. The trial jury could have found him not guilty or even given a very light sentence, or better yet, the guy could have cut a deal and served no time. This grand jury should be reviewed as much as the Twitty grand jury was. I would like to know the racial make-up of the jury. I would like to know if any witnesses were called. I wonder if this will be talk radio fodder tomorrow. My guess is that the usual suspects will comment on it in their predictable fashion, a cheer from WLW and a boo from the Buzz. Bronson’s advocacy of vigilantism is not new, but is expected when it is politically constructive.

Rival boycott groups in court
On today's episode of As the Boycott Turns Juleana Frierson quips, "They're crazy and -- they're acting more like a gang." The judge agreed and issued restraining orders against Boycott B members: Nate Livingston, Steve McDaniels, William Kirkland, Kabaka Oba, Monica Williams, Shannan Clark and Amanda Mayes. Which by all known accounts, makes up nearly 75% of their membership. The straw that broke the camel's back was Frierson's contention:

She accused them of surrounding her car at a boycott event sponsored by her group last Saturday and then rocking the car, pounding its windows, hood and trunk and cursing at and harassing her.

Will the Boycott B group dissolve? Will the Boycott A group cower in fear of the militant tactics of the Boycott B group? Will Nate and Juleana settle their differences by taking a private moonlight cruise on the Ohio? Will Kabaka find the “White Man” pulling all the strings that “made” his son break the law? Will Amanda Mayes bash the Jews again? Will Damon Lynch III actually move to the neighborhood he seeks to champion, or at least live in the City of Cincinnati? To find out, turn in to our next episode of As the Boycott Turns.

Jury clears bar 'hero'
This excerpt from the article sounds like something:

"The grand jury reflects the community," said Hamilton County Prosecutor Mike Allen. "The only thing that I can surmise is that the grand jury felt the elements of the offense were not there."

What does it sound like??? Grand Jury Nullification, or one could speculate it sounds like Prosecutorial manipulation. Was Mike Allen pressured by the gun lobby or the concealed and carry lobby (basically the same group) to help get the grand jury to look the other way on charges of possessing a gun in a bar?

If all it takes for a person to get off is “community” opinion to be in their corner, then I think there have been quite a few people demonized by the Prosecutor’s office that should not have been. Hustler was one, Mapplethorpe was another. Oh, wait, could this “community” Mike Allen speaks of not be the community at large, but instead is the “community” of Republican donors and activists? Hmmm, do you think that is possible.? Phil Burress, say it “ain’t” so.

UPDATE: Additional Press reports -- Enquirer, WCPO, WKRC, WLWT, Plain Dealer, and the Dayton Daily News.

Voinovich feeling heat for tax vote
More criticism on Voinovich, who by all accounts deserves some. George was more concerned about a fictional number, the 350 billion. In typical political fashion George PR campaign as a GOP maverick was a scam. He found a way to appear to appease both sides, while pulling the wool over the voter's eyes. Same bat time, same bat channel.

Equirer: Forum Race relations
Yet another dialogue calling for more dialogue. Let us talk about the need for people to talk to one another. Why don’t we ever discuss the need for breathing?

The need for people to feel they are doing something is only outpaced by the need for people to think they should be doing something.

A FEW unkind words from The New Republic Online: etc. on Senator George Voinovich. He held to his 350 billion number, but caved on the dividend tax semi-repeal.

Just as a reminder to all concerned, I will not be getting any kind of tax cut under any of the plans put forth by the House or Senate or the President. That is Zero, nada, none, a doughnut, el blanko, nil, nothing, zilch, zip, not an iota of a tax cut.

No indictment for man who shot accused bank robber
Grand Jury Nullification at its worst. The man is clearly guilty of having a gun in a bar, no question about it. I wonder how forceful the Prosecutor pushed this case. I would guess not very hard. I am not shocked he was not charged with murder, but shocked he got off completely. I am surprised it went to the grand jury this fast. I wonder if any witnesses beyond police were even called. On the surface this looks like a white man getting a pass for being white. That is not what happened, but I can understand it if someone were to think it true.

Ethan Hahn has thought on this result as well, and shares my overall thoughts on this outcome, but disagrees with at least part of my post from yesterday on the concealed and carry law.

Vigilante man: Hero or felon?
Reluctantly speaking he is a felon. His ends were just, but his means sucked. For many in the conservative camp, that sits just fine with them. To those of us who believe in the rule of law, it does not. This raises the issue I have been talking about for a while in regards to the Conceal and Carry Law many gun nuts have been pushing here in Ohio. Why do they wish to take away the rights of private property owners? Why do many think people should be able to carry a gun anywhere they wish, without consideration of the owner of the property on which they wish to carry the gun? If I own a store, I do not want your gun in my store, regardless of my stance on the Conceal and Carry Law. As the storeowner I have liability to consider. If I allow you to carry your gun on my property, knowingly, I am potentially liable if you use your gun or if it accidentally goes off. Do I have to protect myself by putting up metal detectors at the doors?

The answer many gun nuts will give is "you don't have to worry about a trained law abiding person carrying a gun." My answer is: I sure as hell do have to worry about you. Why kind of idiot thinks that any smart business owner would trust anyone at face valuel? Why would I want any kind of lethal weapon in a shop carried by a person who could at any second shoot me in my store? If you "need" your gun everywhere you go, then I do not want you in my store. If you are in fear of being killed, then keep it out of my store.

How can any libertarian say that I, as a storeowner, must be required to let a person carrying a gun into my store, especially without my knowledge? Why are the gun nuts that feel the need to pack heat not addressing this issue? Is this addressed in the law? I read this section (pdf) from a copy of the gun law passed by the Ohio House and I am not completely sure how it affects the issue I am referring to:

Sec. 2911.21.
(A) No person, without privilege to do so,shall do any of the following:

1. (1) Knowingly enter or remain on the land or premises of another;


2. (2) Knowingly enter or remain on the land or premises of another, the use of which is lawfully restricted to certain persons, purposes, modes, or hours, when the offender knows he the offender is in violation of any such restriction or is reckless in that regard;


3. (3) Recklessly enter or remain on the land or premises of another, as to which notice against unauthorized access or presence is given by actual communication to the offender, or in a manner prescribed by law, or by posting in a manner reasonably
   calculated to come to the attention of potential intruders, or by
   fencing or other enclosure manifestly designed to restrict access;


4. (4) Being on the land or premises of another, negligently fail or refuse to leave upon being notified by signage posted in a conspicuous place or otherwise being notified to do so by the owner or occupant, or the agent or servant of either.

(B) It is no defense to a charge under this section that the land or premises involved was owned, controlled, or in custody of a public agency.

(C) It is no defense to a charge under this section that the offender was authorized to enter or remain on the land or premises involved, when such authorization was secured by deception.

(D) Whoever violates this section is guilty of criminal trespass, a misdemeanor of the fourth degree.

(E) As used in this section, "land or premises" includes any land, building, structure, or place belonging to, controlled by,
or in custody of another, and any separate enclosure or room, or
portion thereof.

If this means that I, as a store owner, must tell you the gun carrier that you can’t carry a gun, then the burden is tougher on the property owner. That is clearly harmful and risky to the owner. Why should the owner have the responsibility to prevent you from carrying on a gun on their property when it is concealed and costly to take steps to prevent it?

The only even remotely rational reasons to carry a gun are of these two possibilities. (1) You have a direct threat on your life or of your immediate family while they are with you, or (2) your employment is deemed as “risky” like the pizza delivery person often used as an example. The carrier of the gun would be limited to time while working. These methods cover where real risk might occur. Others wanting to carry guns, in my opinion, suffer from an over abundance of fear, many of the lack of control of their own safety. If you fear other people so much to want to carry a gun, without any credible threat or risk, then I think you are more likely to use the gun in haste like our Citizen on Patrol mentioned in the editorial.

CANNOT Commission
It would appear that the CAN Commission has amounted to what I expected it would, nothing. Much like all commissions and groups that seek "dialogue", not much results from their actions. Talk is cheap, and no one usually objects to it, so it is the wimp’s answer to a difficult question. Mostly what we got was a dog and pony show to quell critics of the city leaders. They will have succeeded in created a few small programs that will in the end help a few people, but nothing that will amount to much in the short term, and little more in the long run.

Officials blast critics of police
The Post did not single out Heimlich as the Enquirer did.