Our Hometown News
The Little Guy Wins One in Berea Court
Last Updated (Tuesday, 30 November 1999 00:00) Written by Wayne Bereman Wednesday, 30 December 2009 22:54
On December 17th, the “little guy” won one in Berea Court, and it was as interesting a legal drama, although on a smaller scale, as most any episode of Law and Order. Before we get into the case, a little backdrop of the scene is helpful. Assembled in chairs in the courtroom awaiting trial were an eclectic group of fugitives and hardened criminals. One young lady was caught at the bottom of a hill by a speed trap. She plead out and paid a small fine and considerable costs. Another man was charged with driving 2 miles per hour over the speed limit. He ended up paying an even smaller fine and considerable costs. But at the same time, another defendant was charged with domestic violence from an event that occurred several years prior. His case was dismissed completely. These and other cases, while each one certainly interesting if the facts and circumstances had been known, were uneventful as no trial really took place. But there was one trial that did take place, and the events of that trial might serve as a wake up call to many readers, for several different reasons.
This defendant was charged with speeding; driving 76 miles per hour on I-71 through Middleburg Heights. When the trial began Judge Comstock swore in both the Middleburg Heights police officer, “officer V” and our defendant: “the little guy”. We’ll use these short hand names for a few reasons. First, because the press has previously totally ignored coverage of these courts, the prosecutor and officer have most certainly come to expect that the events that take place in court will not be made public. Having operated in private for so long, some might say it’s not fair to blind side them with coverage. Secondly, we don’t wish to embarrass anyone personally. And lastly, what’s important is the larger issues, not this particular case. That said, from now on, we will be covering the courts and legal process in town. There is far too much going on that is being left unreported to ignore. After raising their right hands and swearing to tell the truth, the trial began.
Judge Comstock explained to the defendant how the process would take place. He explained the order of events and a bit of the rules of court. It’s good to see that judges do this, as a private citizen with no attorney could easily become confused without some basic guidance.
First, the prosecution presented its case. The prosecutor asked the officer what happened that day. The officer explained that he observed the defendant driving a vehicle in excess of the speed limit. He was then asked about the laser gun used to determine the speed, and the process that takes place in calibrating the gun. It was clear that the officer knew exactly how to answer such a question, going into great detail in a way that almost sounded memorized. After this very routine case, the prosecution concluded its examination of the officer and it became time for the defendant to present his case and cross examine the officer.
The defendant explained that he was not speeding, and that there was another car that looked very much like his on the road that day. He explained that he observed on that other vehicle one of those police badges that are either magnetic or clipped onto the license plate of certain cars. He said it’s his opinion that officially, these badges are a show of support for law enforcement, but that unofficially everyone knows that these are a get out of jail free card that, depending on the officer, is good for anything from minor speeding to DUI or worse. The defendant said that this car was tailgating him down the highway for miles. The driver had honked his horn, extended the middle finger, and had been flashing his lights for our defendant, who was in front of him in the fast lane, to drive faster. When the defendant approached the officer’s speed trap on the left side of the highway he said he at first thought they might have had someone pulled over, so he changed lanes and slowed down. He then said that the off duty officer or family member of some officer in the road rage vehicle went flying past the defendant in the fast lane and in fact accelerated past the speed trap. This driver was in no way afraid of the speed trap, because he must have believed he either would not be stopped because of his badge, or would be let go if he was stopped.
So on cross examination the defendant asked Officer V if he remembered that car. Officer V said there were many cars on the highway. More interestingly, the defendant asked the officer if he remembered the conversation that they had at the window of the defendant’s car when he was presented with a speeding ticket. The officer carefully replied that he remembered the conversation. The defendant asked the officer if the officer would ever state that he stopped the defendant that day because of “bad luck” or a case of “luck of the draw”. The officer stated that he “would never say that”, and “would never stop someone that way”. The defendant asked the officer if he remembered telling the him that there was another officer that actually had the laser gun that morning. The officer stated that no, HE was the officer with the laser gun. Finally, the defendant asked the officer if he might have a cloudy memory. Was it possible that he forgot certain details or just wasn’t clear, because to be honest, the ticket had been written over a month prior and the officer writes many speeding tickets in that length of time. The officer stated that he has a good memory and that he remembered the events that day.
The defendant then presented a plausible case. He said he thought it was possible that Officer V or the other unknown officer decided on scene to stop his car and not the other car because of that license plate ornament that serves to alert officers that the driver of that car is an officer himself, or the family member or close friend of one. (by the way, next time you see someone flying down the road, see if they don’t have one of those badges, it appears to this author that a disproportionate number of road rage and aggressive drivers know that they can get away with it. There’s no way to know, but many accidents and considerable stress on the roads are certainly caused by drivers that believe they are above the traffic laws). The defendant also went on to say that in fact at the scene the officer told him that another officer had the laser gun, and that that officer was not there to testify. He said it’s possible that this officer made a simple mistake and go this road rage vehicle on radar, and thought it was the defendant. In this case the badge might not have had anything to do with the situation. He further stated that the officer, when questioned at the scene, told the defendant that his vehicle was stopped rather than the faster moving car because, as the officer said “the luck of the draw”. The defendant then stated he had no further questions for the officer and the judge directed the prosecutor to begin his redirect examination of the officer. The prosecutor asked Officer V if another officer was on scene that day. The officer said yes. The prosecutor then asked Officer V who had the laser gun, and the officer again directly stated under oath that HE had the laser gun. He also stated that he never said what the defendant claimed and that he would not show favoritism.
The judge then gave the defendant an opportunity to present any final evidence or arguments. Now before we get to the good part, I wonder how many readers would dismiss the case now. We have only the testimony of Officer V and the testimony of the defendant. No physical evidence has been presented. No witnesses have been presented. It is a clear “he said versus he said” case. In more serious cases, a conviction would never be entered, or if entered, would never hold up. We hold our standard of reasonable doubt to be important in this country, and without further evidence the only way to enter a conviction is to say that the officer’s testimony, because he is an officer of the law, is of a higher credibility and standard, and must be weighted heavier than the defendant. And in fact, this is exactly what happens in most every municipal court in most every city of the country. I view this as a breach of basic due process, but it is the standard operating procedure. Officers are expected to be above reproach and their testimony is considered golden in court.
Until now.
The defendant paused for a moment and then stated that not only did the officer say the things he said on scene, but that he had a recording of their conversation, and was prepared to play it in court if asked.
You could have heard a pin drop.
The officer’s eyes were as big as silver dollars, and everyone in the court room nervously shifted and fidgeted. The judge, with a hand to his forehead and a not too subtle glare in the direction of the prosecution asked the defendant if he had told the prosecutor about this tape. The defendant said that before the trial, the prosecutor had, as is the routine with virtually every case that goes to trial, offered to dismiss the case if the defendant was willing to pay the court costs of about $130. The defendant stated that he told the prosecutor that he had some interesting evidence to present and would not want to take such a deal. The prosecutor then firmly stated “fine” and turned and walked away without inquiring as to the evidence. It seemed to the defendant that in this prosecutor’s mind convictions are easy and whatever the defendant had to present would not matter or could not be important.
The judge then gave the prosecutor and this officer a break. He stated that the court would go into a short recess and that the defendant and the prosecutor would have a chance to “work things out”. During the recess the prosecutor asked the defendant to play the tape for he and the officer. On the tape everything the defendant said could be heard. The officer HAD stopped the defendant because of “luck of the draw”. The officer HAD been the chase car at a two man speed trap, with another officer holding the laser gun. But rather than prevent this from being played in court for the judge to hear (which would obviously lower the credibility of this officer in the mind of the judge from here out) the prosecutor offered the defendant the same deal he had offered before! The defendant declined. Why the prosecutor did not protect this officer I do not know.
When the judge returned a short time later, with no agreement between the defense and prosecution, the judge was forced to ask the defendant to play the tape. He did. It was played 3 times in fact, as the judge was very carefully listening to the tape to make absolutely certain that the officer did in fact say what he said. The judge stated openly that he clearly heard on the tape what the defendant asserted. The defendant made the argument that the rules of evidence should be applied as strictly in these cases as a murder trial or other serious offense; that the system and due process are important. He argued that reasonable doubt had easily been established, that the testimony of the officer was compromised, and that with the other officer not there to testify as to who the laser gun was aimed at or its operating condition, not to mention why he decided to have the chase car stop the defendant and not the faster driver, all of the basic evidence of the case was hearsay. Judge Comstock then dismissed the speeding charge. The “little guy” had won one.
What’s more important than this speeding ticket is the legal system in our area. It’s now been established without any possibility of denial that at least one officer of the law has presented false testimony under oath in court. At this point, we can only wonder how the Judge will view other cases in which Officer V testifies. If the Judge can possibly believe that every other officer is 100% honest and has a 100% accurate memory all of the time, he must have questions at least about this particular officer from this point forward. And what about all the cases where the evidence was similar, but the defendant didn’t have a tape? Are these convictions not in doubt now? It seems to this reporter that we should look at the bigger picture here.
It seems to us at Our Hometown News that these speed traps are flawed on several levels. First, these tactics and games are not worthy of a free people. We call it “government by gotcha”. We should not be subjected to constant surveillance and adversarial attention from police in our day to day lives. And we suspect many good officers of the law would agree. We know that many of them would prefer to not spend their days enforcing minor speeding infractions. They know, as do we, that other cases that do not raise as much revenue go unsolved. Why not promote some of these experienced officers to detective duty and reduce minor “government by gotcha” priorities? The answer? Say it with me. Money. Because the overwhelming majority of speeding tickets are not fought there is big revenue in it for the cities. Millions are collected by area cities every year in fines.
Every single driver has gone over the posted speed limit at some point. It’s my opinion that speeding and other minor traffic offenses are basically victimless crimes that are arbitrarily enforced, and wrongly prosecuted. We’re not talking about the guy going 120 mph on a state route. Everyone wants that guy to be caught, but his crime isn’t simply speeding… it’s reckless endangerment, among other things. I do not believe a free people are truly free if at any moment they can be pulled over by an officer for doing what they do on a daily basis, and forced to pay fines. And if they fight, we now know, if we didn’t already, that the testimony of the officer about the events just might not be the truth. And without proof, will the defendant’s testimony be discounted because he is not an officer of the law, thus losing the “he said versus he said” fight? I think we all know this is wrong and unfair. And to top it off certain connected people are free to drive how they like without fear. The very existence of these privileges is an acknowledgment that the crimes are not serious, and are in fact “government by gotcha”.
These cases needlessly create an adversarial relationship between police and residents. And we all know that the fines are structured in such a way as to maximize revenue. If the fines were significantly higher than the court costs plus the lost time at work, more people would fight. If the fines were lower revenue would not be maximized to the city governments.
And perhaps most important is the slippery slope that these cases create. Lowering the standard of evidence in one case can result in the lowering of that standard in more serious cases. Speeding cases are a significant cost, hundreds in fines and thousands in increased insurance premiums routinely result, but what about more serious offenses? Our system, freedoms, and rights are more important than the never ending thirst for more money by government.
All of this said, let’s keep it in perspective. We have a good Judge in our municipal court. The “little guy” can receive justice. But clearly there is a problem as well. And just as the judge instructed the defendant in this case that “two wrongs don’t make a right” (the other guy speeding doesn’t mean that the defendant was not speeding), the fact that “every other city enforces speeding the same way” doesn’t make it right in our city. It IS within our power as a community to be a catalyst for bigger change, and we CAN stop this “government by gotcha” in our community at least. We would not think that city hall or any government official would claim that the fines generated from minor, arbitrarily enforced offenses are a necessary component of the operating revenue of the city. If they were to make such an argument, we would certainly question their ability to operate government efficiently, and worse, they would be admitting to a dependence on prosecution of voters as a revenue source. As powerful as the “machine” of connected government workers is, the people would most certainly replace their leaders if they believed that when the government needs more money, they are just going to hire more police and run more speed traps. This would appear to most any average citizen as a parasitic and predatory relationship between government and the people, and would not be long tolerated. So we have to conclude that these millions are not necessary, but instead “extra” funds. So as to take away any appearance of a money making machine being created by traffic offenses, we have a few ideas.
The money should be taken out of the system. The fine for speeding should be $1, no matter the speed. Now when a person is driving recklessly, or seriously impaired by drugs or alcohol, nobody would argue that they cannot be stopped or charged… but these charges are separate offenses anyway.
Short of eliminating the fine for victimless crimes like speeding, how about city council taking up the cause of segregating this money into a fund earmarked for some purpose that has nothing to do with the expansion of government salaries or operations of the government. A legal defense fund for any resident charged with any crime would seem to be a good suggestion. What voter would not reward a politician that would set up a fund for them to defend themselves and be sure they receive due process should they find themselves charged with a crime?
Of course, city council could change the law entirely. The arbitrary speed limit number is flawed as well. A professional and experienced driver with good tires, on dry pavement, with no traffic can very safely drive in excess of 60 miles per hour. On the other hand, on the ice, with poor visibility, a less experienced driver might be driving too fast at 40 miles per hour. The first driver is “guilty” and the second driver is “not guilty” under our black and white speed enforcement process. Why not empower our elected Judges specifically in the code to use their good common sense judgment?
Finally, city hall could change the system. The Chief of Police, Safety Director, or Mayor could direct police resources to be used differently. A simple matter of administrative direction could be a relief to residents that feel targeted by an arbitrary and unfair system that intimidates them, while protecting others who behave exactly the same way.
We would like to hear your feedback. And know this, where other newspapers ignore the courts, we’ll be covering them. From time to time our reporters will be observing and reporting on interesting cases at the courthouse. And just as we are committed to bringing readers positive stories of police when they act bravely and bust the real criminals (and we need you to help us find these stories), we will also be there if a government official acts badly, or where the system is abusive to “the little guy”. “Government by gotcha” is not our idea of freedom, what do you think?
Free Trade – The Destruction of the United States
Last Updated (Tuesday, 30 November 1999 00:00) Written by George Csatary Wednesday, 30 December 2009 22:46
Editor’s Note; The following is an excerpt of a speech given by local businessman and CPA George Csatary, to a group of writers, economists, and political scientists in Baltimore Maryland. We believe the topic is timely and critical, as so many Americans now recognize the loss of control and independence of our nation, but few are in agreement as to the cause of our national decline. Mr Csatary cuts to the root cause by addressing the first principle upon which our nation is built, the Constitution and Declaration of Independence, and establishes that we are not founded as a nation with a document meant to be a national suicide pact. Instead, our founders created an economic system to establish political sovereignty. It has been called protectionism, the American School, and the National Market System. But by whatever name, it is the uniquely American invention that drove prosperity, and it is the alteration of that system which has driven our recent decline. We hope you’ll enjoy this short piece.
No serious American, or any student of history, can deny the new ground in political science that was broken by our founders in that convention in Philadelphia in 1787. However, what has sadly been overlooked is the equally new ground in economic science that was created in the Constitution and implemented by the Tariff Act of 1789 to accomplish the goals set forth in the Preamble to the Constitution, which were to be accomplished as a result of the system, which was implemented by the economic means to accomplish the political goals of the Constitution by the Tariff Act of 1789.
Economics is the science of means and not ends – In our Constitution which creates the national market system are many economic items which are fundamentally necessary parts of a market system:
To borrow Money on the credit of the United States. To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes; To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States; To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures; To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States; To establish Post Offices and post Roads; To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries; (patents and copyrights)
Section 9.
No Capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or enumeration herein before directed to be taken.
No Tax or Duty shall be laid on Articles exported from any State.
No Preference shall be given by any Regulation of Commerce or Revenue to the Ports of one State over those of another; nor shall Vessels bound to, or from, one State, be obliged to enter, clear, or pay Duties in another.
No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law; and a regular Statement and Account of the Receipts and Expenditures of all public Money shall be published from time to time.
Section 10.
No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility.
No State shall, without the Consent of the Congress, lay any Imposts or Duties on Imports or Exports, except what may be absolutely necessary for executing it’s inspection Laws: and the net Produce of all Duties and Imposts, laid by any State on Imports or Exports, shall be for the Use of the Treasury of the United States; and all such Laws shall be subject to the Revision and Control of the Congress.
No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any Duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay.
Article IV.
Section 3.
New States may be admitted by Congress……..
The Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States; and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to Prejudice any Claims of the United States, or of any particular State.
Section 4.
The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened), against domestic Violence.
Amendment VII
In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise reexamined in any court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.
Last but not least the first item in Article I, Section 8.
The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
Many of the items that define the market system are later defined by Ludwig von Mises, when speaking as the great free market economist that he is as a necessary condition for a market system, namely: Private Property, a single agent of coercion called government, the division of labor and the absence of institutional interference in the market place. We want to apply this definition to our national market system, whereas the free traders want to apply it to a global market system that includes such agents of a global system as the World Bank, International Monetary Fund, all the branches of the United Nations, Ex-Im Bank, ad nausea.
However, according to James Madison in his speech to congress in support of that Tariff Act, it was also the responsibility of the legislative branch of government to create a “System” that would accomplish the second of the enumerated goals of the preamble, to “Establish Justice”. Establishing justice, Madison declared would be accomplished by the act of the legislative branch of this new government in creating a “System” that would both raise the necessary revenue to fund the usual ordinary operating expenses of the central government and at the same time would not be oppressive to the people.
Listen to Madison, the Father of our Constitution, as he declares on the floor in Congress: “Happy it is for us that such a “System” is within our power, for I apprehend that both of these goals may be accomplished by imposts on products imported into the United States”. With the passage of this first law by Congress the framework was laid for the growth of the United States into the greatest nation in the history of society, whose citizens had the most amount of individual freedom and liberty of any people in the history of man.
Symbolically this act was signed into law by George Washington, the Father of our country, on July Fourth, 1789, the date most of our Founders greatly revered.
This first tariff act was immediately followed up by additional tariff acts until the historic tariff level in the 1820s was approximately 40% ad valorum on all products imported into the United States. This 40% level was maintained for the next 130 years until the 1950s well after the Second World War. With the important fact that government could grow no larger than the amount of revenue collected on tariffs unlike today with the unlimited funds created by the income tax amendment.
The United States was founded as history’s first independent (not interdependent) national (not world) market system, a uniquely American invention. It was, in fact, commonly identified as “The New American Economic System”. This free enterprise, free market national division of labor economicsystem was created out of necessity to accomplish the goals enumerated in the Preamble to the Constitution. “To form a more perfect union” between “We the people” is the purpose that is accomplished by economics. I emphasize that economics is the science of means to accomplish predetermined goals and cannot by itself establish what those goals ought to be.
It was this “system” and the great nation that prospered under it that immediately came under attack by the devotees of one worldism. If such a system were permitted to continue their goal of an interdependent ecumenical union of the peoples of the world would fail. As Frank Adeloyette, secretary to the seventh Rhodes Trust (founded by Cecil Rhodes) wrote: “…. the main obstacle to a one world system is the traditional American tariff system of Protectionism.” Karl Marx also wrote that free trade eliminates national boundaries and breaks down traditional conservative values and for that reason he was in favor of it.
How to destroy the traditional tariff system was the problem when onto the scene in 1817 came David Ricardo with his theory of comparative advantage. Ricardo, along with David Hume, Jeremy Bentham, and James Mill (the father of J.S. Mill) among others, was one of those who are defined as classical liberals or as they were known in those days, the radical anarchists. Ricardo developed his theory to answer the question: “How does a nation superior in the production of all things trade with a nation inferior in the production of all things?” The economic answer to the Ricardian theory is of course that any trade would be based upon absolute advantage, not comparative advantage. If there was no absolute advantage, then there would be no reason to trade.
But such kind of trade (based on absolute advantage) would not lead to the breaking down of national independence and the creation of a new world order that the classical liberals envisioned. Since trading with a nation inferior in all things would violate the practice of good economics, the theory of comparative advantage, was developed to be the major practice upon which free trade is built. Unfortunately for these liberals the development of the science of economics has since discredited the labor theory of value upon which this theory as well as Marx’s economic theories were based. Economists now recognize that economic activity occurs on the principle of the marginal, not the labor theory of value. It is also important to note that the marginal theory of value is the principle of market economics, while the labor theory of value utilized by Ricardo and Marx is the principle of all collectivist economic theories. (This is easily proved but it again would require a lengthy discussion and analysis, which does not fit into this brief overview. For the interested reader see the epilogue by the late Murray N. Rothbard in the book Planning for Freedom - author).
It is true today that it is and has been the leaders of the United States who have been among the staunchest and most vocal leaders in promoting free trade. But, since this will mean the destruction of the sovereign independent constitutional republic that we know and love, the question becomes, why would conservative and other American “freedom” loving groups get on the same band wagon promoting the same means as the globalists? When we as patriotic Americans reject and degrade our own unique traditional American economic system, by accepting the arguments of the globalists and desire to replace it with the system of the one worlders, then not only we as conservatives but also our nation has a major problem.
Features and Investigations In Progress That You Will NOT Want To Miss
Last Updated (Tuesday, 30 November 1999 00:00) Written by Wayne Bereman Wednesday, 30 December 2009 22:33
The following are a handful of stories and investigations that we’re currently working on.
Legal Battle Intrigue
Soon we’ll be breaking news regarding a high profile local legal battle that went largely uninvestigated by other media sources. You won’t believe what we’ve already uncovered, and we’re not even halfway done yet.
Consumer Alert – Abusive Banks
In the coming months we’ll be releasing the results of an in depth investigation into how some banks create rules and handle transactions in such a way as to intentionally create massive fee income for the bank at the expense of their customers, and we’re not talking small potatoes here. Stay tuned for that one.
Mortgage Meltdown Confessions
We’ll be providing a series of articles from inside the mortgage crisis, by insiders who lived the day to day life in the sub prime mortgage world, which has been blamed for the collapse of our economic system and subsequent massive bailouts to prevent a total depression.
Face to Face with Power
Two hard hitting, no holds barred interviews with local political figures are coming up shortly in Our Hometown News; we ask some probing questions that other reporters just don’t like to bring up.
Escaping Communism
We’ll also be bringing you the personal narrative of an immigrant whose family resisted and oppressive eastern block regime and escaped to freedom in the United States. She’ll also air some very candid views about the direction our cities, state, and federal governments are heading today.
All this and more in the coming months, in Our Hometown News.
We do our very best to ensure that every home and business receives a copy of Our Hometown News. However, despite our best efforts, sometimes a home here or there can be missed by our delivery team, or a paper might not reach everyone in a given home before being misplaced or discarded. Because of this we place copies with local businesses and restaurants, the library, and offer subscriptions for a nominal fee ($10 per year). Subscribers receive a copy in the mail each month.
Keeping Them Honest
Last Updated (Tuesday, 30 November 1999 00:00) Written by Wayne Bereman Wednesday, 30 December 2009 22:13
It has been famously said that the price of freedom is eternal vigilance. Our founding fathers created a unique nation, where the rights of men were said to be endowed not by government, but by our Creator, and that we all have unalienable rights. The role of government in this new system was to secure these rights, and as such coequal branches of government were created to be a check on each other, and the media of the time was vigorous in defending liberty.
But over time, incrementally, one baby step at a time, many of the rights our founders envisioned have instead become privileges. We do not have the right to travel anymore, we have the privilege of travel granted by the state in the form of a driver’s license, which can be revoked or limited at any time, even for folks that have not been found guilty of committing a crime. We do not have the right to assemble and protest anymore, cities can rule assemblies to be illegal at any time, and those that do not disperse can be attacked, jailed, and deadly force can be applied by the police, if in their judgment, it is warranted. We do not have the right to carry a firearm for self protection, we have the privilege of carrying and concealing a handgun only if the government grants a permit and under many restrictions. Over time, virtually all of the rights in the bill of rights have been limited or revoked and are now considered privileges.
For the most part, this incremental change has happened within the bounds of our republican form of government. We have elected representatives and they have made changes to our system in tiny steps, one compromise after another. But it is my firm belief that if the people knew the true nature of what their Presidents, Congressmen, state legislators, and councilman have done, many of these changes would have been rejected, and liberty would have been preserved. But too often government acts very quickly and covertly, making changes very quickly with little or no notice to the voters. And the media, for various reasons including philosophical dispositions, fear of the loss of advertising, fear of reprisal by government, lack of understanding and vision, and simple complacency, have failed to alert voters to all sides of an issue, and the full details of the actions of government. Sadly, because of human nature, and because the process of fundamentally altering our system has been implemented slowly and incrementally, people become acclimated to the changes, and lose sight of how good it could be, how much more wealth they could accumulate and pass on to their children, and how much more freedom and liberty they could have enjoyed.
Recently it has become widely known that in Congress our representatives rarely read and understand the legislation on which they vote. They rely on staffers, lobbyists, industry experts, and the opinions of party leadership to make decisions. Bills of literally thousands of pages are sometimes presented to Congress at night and voted on the next day. And it has been revealed that the executive branch, under both political parties, has threatened key Congressmen with everything from negative campaign ads, to well funded opposition in future races, to literally martial law if Congress fails to pass certain key pieces of legislation. This while from the other side their corporate supporters offer the carrot of unlimited campaign funds, or the threat of pulling their support, to pressure our local Congressmen. Even a good man attempting to do a good job is faced with a nearly impossible task. And of course, we know now that many are not even attempting to be honest. Dozens of high ranking politicians, including Congressmen, have been convicted of various crimes like accepting bribes for votes. One Congressman even had a ‘menu’ that he gave wealthy special interests to purchase votes, including things like a boat, homes, cash payments, vacations, and other ‘gifts’.
Our county government is in shambles presently for just this reason. Accusations of bribes and other illegal activities have resulted in dozens of indictments and our highest officials are under investigation, and will almost certainly be charged. But the rumors and stories of bribes and payouts in this county is just about the worst kept secret of which I can imagine. Yet never did the media in town dig up these stories and expose them. It was only after years and years of these activities that the FBI finally made cases and revealed their investigation. Good detectives and law enforcement will tell you, however, that some of the biggest cases in history originated in the media, where investigative journalists uncovered information, published what they knew, and got the attention of law enforcement.
Locally, our city council has adopted a de-facto standard of practice to pass virtually all legislation under emergency powers, suspending the city charter requirement for three readings. Much of these ordinances are of a routine nature, and probably pose no risk of loss to the city or residents. But even so, why not follow through with the charter’s requirements out of simple respect to the charter and the spirit behind the requirement. When a true emergency arises, by all means utilize the emergency provisions of the charter, but why conduct routine business at the last minute, without ample notice to residents and media, and with virtually no debate? It seems a bad precedent to set to say that everything council undertakes is so routine and unimportant that it can be literally presented and passed in a matter of days, if not the same day. Isn’t the administration of our city important?
The city council is the legislative branch of government for our city, and has the sole authority to authorize spending and approve ordinances. This power of the purse strings is what makes them a coequal branch of government, and potentially a check on executive power. In most cities in this area, the executive is very powerful, and the legislative branch has become subservient. For political reasons, and because they have not in many cases been jealous of their power in full understanding of the importance of coequal branches of government, Mayors and executives have become quite empowered. This is not always a problem, as many of our Mayors and executives are certainly doing the best job they can for their residents, but the potential for temptation to abuse power is always there. It usually starts small and then grows. Brook Park, for instance, recently lost a safety director over a misuse of power allegation surfaced.
But in the county, where there really is no coequal branch of government checking the power of the three county executives (commissioners), the allegations of abuse of power are profound and shocking to many. So there are three points here to take away, I believe, and remember.
First is that the media has dropped the ball big time. At the Federal level, state level, county and regional, and locally as well, the media are not there digging up the stories, giving the full philosophical and factual arguments, and treating the supposedly routine business of government as though it is important. This publication is the humble attempt of a few people to change that. But it’s not easy. It requires your support. Already one new writer has left the cause so to speak, after losing the stomach to tackle tough local issues, saying it would be more profitable to not investigate and cover all sides of an issue if it upsets a powerful interest, and saying that “as long as the garbage gets picked up, that’s good enough locally”. It’s a microcosm of what happens in media all over. It’s EASY to publish only ‘fluff’. But it takes hard work and guts to tackle issues that will ruffle feathers. We seek to be tough but fair at all times. I hope you see that this is our intention. You can support this publication and our mission in many ways. Most importantly, read it, consider what it says, and get involved. Share this publication with your friends. Discuss the issues we bring out and even debate them. Then share what you think with us. You should also support our advertisers, and tell them you are their customer because they supported us. You can attend our new meetup group, which we are forming this month, and get involved with us in that way. And you can purchase subscriptions to the paper. It’s not necessary of course to do this, not at all, but I want to thank the many residents that have purchased subscriptions, as well as those that sent us contributions to say thanks. I’m humbled and motivated by that type of generosity, and it bolsters my confidence greatly that there are many good people who agree that a vigorous media and defense of liberty is important.
The second point to take away is that our coequal branch system of government is important. The county will be reorganizing power soon, and its our hope that the voters will get it right and propose and form a plan that creates coequal branches at the county level. It does not seem to me that any change that reorganizes power but fails to create coequal branches of government will be successful long term.
Thirdly, we should remember to vigilant and empower our city council to fully debate issues, question decisions, and protect their coequal status. There may be no reason to believe that anyone in the executive branch is anything but completely ethical today. But this may not always be the case. Who knows what may happen down the line in the coming years. Mayors, executives, councilmen, and government workers come and go, but the system remains, and the checks and balances within it must remain as well.
Who We Are And Why We Need Real Journalism Again
Last Updated (Tuesday, 30 November 1999 00:00) Written by Wayne Bereman Wednesday, 30 December 2009 21:47
The question I hear most these days is “Why in the world would you want to go into the newspaper business? Don’t you know that all the newspapers are failing?” To which I will generally respond “Yes, I know, and I can’t think of a better reason or a better time to start a newspaper”.
There’s a reason that newspapers are failing, and it has nothing to do with the internet, or television, or some mysterious social change taking place where people no longer want to read things. No, the newspapers are failing because they deserve to fail. Most any government agency aside, there is no greater example of the destructive power of “group think” than is being displayed in the world of print journalism.
Firstly, the major newspapers, and in fact most all main stream media, are top heavy and bloated. From a business perspective, their unionized work forces, high overhead, massive fixed costs, and lack of cost controls are driving them out of business.
But poor business sense they could survive. Bad journalism they cannot. And this is the reality of the main stream media today; they are bad journalists. Put simply, they are writing things that people cannot relate to, don’t care about, and their readers know they are being lied to, misled, and manipulated by these mega-corporate elites. Every day, more and more people put down their daily paper and never pick it back up again. We don’t blame them.
Competence
First of all, journalists have become incredibly lazy. Pick up the daily newspaper in this or most any town today. What will you see? Mostly, you’ll see press releases and wire reports. The day to day life of most journalists now is to sit in their cubicle at the beehive and wait for the assignment desk to give them some “interesting” press releases. Mostly, the journalists then take a long coffee break, lunch, and reword the press release to further sanitize an already sanitary bit of information. Then it’s spell and grammer checked (maybe) and printed. The journalist then goes home, spends his salary, and pats himself on the back, somehow seeing Edwin R. Murrow or Bob Woodward in the mirror each morning. Meanwhile, to fill out the paper, wire reports are reprinted as news without regard for fact checking, context, or perspective. In reality, there is very little difference between the daily papers in Chicago, New York, Los Angeles, or Cleveland. They are largely reprinting the same wire reports. Talk about group think.
And on that issue of fact checking, consider this little tid-bit. Recently a prominent man passed away. His name is not important. A prankster, out to prove a point, went on wikipedia (a user edited encyclopedia on the internet) and edited the information about this deceased man, making up a bunch of things with no basis in fact. Would it surprise you that in articles and obituaries in prominent news papers around the world his lies were reprinted, in some cases word for word?
Not us. You won’t see wire reports in Our Hometown News, and you won’t see us re-printing press releases that just came over the fax machine or in our email box. We think readers deserve better.
Journalism
The days of Pulitzer, Hearst, Murrow and Woodward may be passing away, but they don’t have to. And in fact, we believe very strongly that real journalism will result in more readers. People want to read the truth, and they want to read interesting, investigative stories.
Real journalism is not scared. As I’ve begun the process of launching local news magazines like this one in various communities, I’ve had an opportunity to interview and talk to many journalists. I’ve talked to Plain Dealer reporters, local reporters, citizen journalists and bloggers, students and retirees that have something to say and are interested in what we’re doing, and what we’re trying to accomplish. And in this process I’ve learned a few things.
One thing I learned is that most, if not all, established journalists are either afraid to cover tough stories, or were not permitted to cover them as they worked for the big media outlets. Some said to me things like “I’d love to uncover a big scoop, but you have to understand that if I criticize a powerful person or tell the whole story, they’ll freeze me out and I won’t get the next story.” Or they’ll say “these politicians and businessmen are my friends, I can’t write anything critical about them… they’re on my golf league, and I meet them at the bar twice a week”. I actually told one reporter to his face that he’s a coward. Another told me that every time he wrote something he was proud of it would get cut to shreds by his editors, or rejected completely to protect certain people.
We’ll never burn a source or print salacious rumors or scandals without regard to the facts. But at the same time, we will investigate stories. We will cover the good and the bad. The TRUTH is more important than a source, more important than a golfing buddy, more important than getting easy scoops or having powerful people like you and drink beer with you. The truth is what people need to hear, and it is what any decent journalist should seek to find.
But it goes deeper than just cover-ups and laziness by individual journalists. The destruction of real journalism has become institutionalized. The big newspapers don’t endorse candidates, for example, based on their merits or positions. They endorse based on two things: who has raised the most money, and who they think will win based on the demographics in town. Don’t believe me? Run for office and go to an interview with the editorial board at a big newspaper. In most cases, the very first question you’ll be asked is “does the county party chairman support you”, and “how much money have you raised”. Now tell me what difference either of those facts make to a citizen in the community. Does money raised or the support of a county political machine mean your vision, skills, or qualifications are superior? Give us a break. And then, in the back room at the editorial desk, comes the question; is this or that advertiser contributing to this or that candidate? At this point, need we even say more?
At Our Hometown News, it’s different. We’re local and de-centralized. No advertiser is so important that they can put us out of business. We have no allegiance to either political party, and in fact, would prefer a world without them entirely. We’re more anti-partisan than non-partisan, and the rest of the media world is completely sold out to one party or the other. In national media, it’s so bad that the editorial directors and producers wait each day for talking points from the national party chairmen and their subordinates. They then craft their message utilizing those talking points in order to psychologically sensitize their audience to certain ideas and phrases. They’re truly, completely bought and paid for by the big corporate and political power structures of this world. What a massive disservice to the people that read their newspapers and watch their cable and network news channels and programs. It simply has to stop.
Tough, but Fair
The truth is rarely popular. On every issue or question there are competing interests, polarized and financially and emotionally invested. When journalists seek the truth, it’s often in the middle somewhere, and it’s often not simple. More importantly, it often ruffles feathers. Well, so be it. We seek to be tough, but fair at all times. You may read something that makes your blood boil. That’s ok with us, and it should be ok with you. Because know that when you read something you agree with, that it made someone else’s blood boil. If nobody is upset by something you’re doing or writing, what you are doing or writing isn’t very important. There’s a fine line between love and hate, but indifference is the opposite of both. Think about that for a moment and we know you’ll agree. Accurate thinking, which leads to the discovery of truth, requires that bias, prejudice, and passionate emotions be set aside.
Local
Most people realize that what is happening locally is often more important and has more impact on their lives than events on the other side of the globe, in Washington DC, or even in Columbus. In the day to day lives of most people, what’s interesting and important is what is close to home. Even the smug folks out there that consider themselves “citizens of the world” may want to keep their head in the clouds, but deep down even they know that at some level, their local teacher that sees their son or daughter 5 days a week is more important in their life than the new head of the department of education in DC.
But unfortunately, the reality that there is an increasing demand for local content has not changed things in the world of journalism much. The daily papers barely attempt to cover local events, people, or news. They devote a tiny fraction of their pages to local stories, and cover massive geographic areas, ignoring 99 out of every 100 local stories, not even trying to cover our community.
And all too often even the local papers decide not to cover local events in a journalistic way. Many communities have “advertainment” newspapers that charge local businesses for a story about them, pretending that they just happened upon that business and had to write about it. But readers are smarter than that. If you don’t believe me, go to one of these newspapers and ask them to write about your business, and listen to the salesperson tell you how much that article costs. And outside of advertisements and these bought and paid-for articles, there is no journalism. There are few or no stories about local people, local events, local intrigue, or local politics. There’s no local coverage or local journalism. Advertainment may have its place in town, and if people enjoy perusing advertising circulars that’s perfectly fine with us. But we think that newspapers should do more.
We’re going to cover local events. We want to hear about local hero’s and local people doing interesting and important things. We know that money spent locally benefits everyone in the community, and we’re going to highlight local businesses; and we aren’t going to ask you to buy our support. So call us or email us with your stories. We want to hear from you!
Your Point of View
Another problem with journalism today is the question of point of view. As you can already guess, even if you had not figured it out before, the point of view of most everything you read in a newspaper, watch on television, or hear on the radio is from the perspective of a powerful interest. They might be a politician, the government itself, a political party, a wealthy individual, or a mega-corporation. But whatever that powerful interest, their point of view is being expressed, not yours. We vow to be the opposite. We write with you in mind. How does this event or fact effect our readers? What effect on an individual does this law or that ordinance have? What social problems exist that need to be discussed, even though there are no press releases or political events driving coverage?
Journalists today are being taught by their professors and by the “successful” writers that news should be non-biased, sanitary, divorced from emotion, and from a detached point of view. How boring. And further, how phony. Some may not believe or want to believe this, but it has to be said. Every single news article you’ve ever read in your entire life had a bias behind it. By omission of certain information, or by commission of bias, every story, every article, every piece of journalism is biased in some way or another. Period. No matter how much the journalist wishes to present “just the facts ma’am”, they cannot. Their bias is implicit in the work, and they should not be ashamed of it, but instead embrace it and disclose it. Beyond that reality, detached journalism with a bunch of random facts has no purpose or impact. Facts and figures without context are meaningless. Detached, emotionless coverage of important events would never inspire action or passion in the reader.
I’ll tell you right now that we have some biases. I believe it’s important to lay it out there for the sake of honesty and integrity. One bias is that of individual freedom. I firmly believe that we must at all times protect individual freedoms. The right of people to express their opinions, to assemble, to protest, to worship, to invest their capital as they see fit, and to pursue life, liberty, and happiness must not only be protected, but expanded. We should always seek to maximize our individual freedoms to maximize our potential. That brings us to bias number two. People are capable of great things. Some publications seem to think we are all stupid. They seem to think we are robots and fools. I don’t believe that. Individuals who put their minds to work with positive energy and belief in themselves can accomplish anything they put their mind to. There is no problem too great to be solved. There is no mountain too high to climb. There is no power too great to overcome. Period. Thirdly, I believe that power can be an addicting drug, and a corrupting force. It has often been said that “absolute power corrupts absolutely”. Powerful groups, interests, and politicians, when they are not being watched closely, will invariably become lazy, corrupt, or both. We deserve better and can have better. We deserve public servants, not politicians. We deserve the best health care of which our minds can conceive. We deserve the best education our teachers can deliver. We deserve safe products at our stores, and we deserve an economy that works for everyone. And the truth is, we can have it. And lastly, I believe in local control and local power. It’s far better for a local school board to make decisions about educating local children than a national school board hundreds of miles away in DC, for example. Our local elected officials and institutions need to have the ability and power to make decisions that are best for the local community, and they need to be accountable to only the local community. Regionally, the states should assert their tenth amendment power and make decisions for their residents without regard to the whims of federal politicians. Nationally, the United States should be a sovereign and independent nation in all ways. We must have the ability to manufacture and produce all the things we consume. We must have protection from foreign political, economic, and military interference. We must think first of America and Americans when we make decisions that affect America and Americans. We are, and of right ought to be, free and independent, which is certainly in contrast to a region of an enormous globalized world of multi-national institutions, governments, or a global marketplace. We hope you agree, and we know you probably do.
A Service to the Community and to the Reader
We believe that it’s a shame that newspapers have abandoned some of the things that made them great. One of those things was a commitment to the individual reader. Newspapers in the past sought at all times to make a personal connection with each reader, and to provide them with information that would improve their lives in practical and tangible ways. We will include the “good news” in every issue of Our Hometown News. We will include information to help you live a healthier life. We will provide you with inspirational stories and techniques to maximize your individual potential in so far as we are capable. We will humbly attempt to be of service to everyone that picks up this publication, whether they like everything we write or not.
A strong community has pride. Pride is developed by achievement and awareness. We should all shop locally, for example, as much as possible, so that our friends and neighbors locally can be successful, so that our tax base can grow, so that we have employment and activity and the ability to help one another. But if you didn’t know about a local store, or local manufacturer, it’s not your fault that you bought something made in China from a mega big box retailer that sends all of the profit overseas for the benefit of a foreign community. It’s not your fault that you didn’t know that a local man started a charitable organization that you would have supported. It’s not your fault if you are duped into voting for a ballot issue that would do you harm if the local media didn’t provide you with necessary information. But in each case you, and your community, pay the price. It’s the job of a journalist to bring that information to you, and make it interesting, trustworthy, and compelling. We seek to do just that as best we can. So we need your help. Be in touch with us. Call us. Write us. Email us. Send a carrier pigeon to our office. Get our attention and tell us what you think is important and what you think people need to know.
Thank you, and I hope you enjoy Our Hometown News.