Speaker 1: All right, Billy Cunningham, the Great America, and let's continue
Speaker 1: with more than about an hour or so. Peter Bronson
Speaker 1: will be here. Spoke out about the Northwest territories and more.
Speaker 1: I told the Trumpster about eight months ago that I
Speaker 1: will take care of the Northwest territories. I'll be the
Speaker 1: right wing on the Northwest territories. Also joining us later
Speaker 1: will be Joe Dieters, who's Deaters unplugged. In fact, Peter
Speaker 1: Bronson's writing a book with Joe Dieters about prosecutous office.
Speaker 1: That kind of stuff.
Speaker 2: Interesting.
Speaker 1: But until then, of course, I just heard the news
Speaker 1: talk about city council wants to have a sixty day
Speaker 1: waiting period. They want to study the issue for sixty
Speaker 1: days about homelessness and what they can do, what they
Speaker 1: can't do, as if it's a brand new toy they
Speaker 1: can't discover on Christmas morning how to operate it. But
Speaker 1: a man that has all the answers is Kurt Hartman, attorney,
Speaker 1: former judge, works with Chris Finney and so much more.
Speaker 1: And Kurt Hartman, welcome again to the Bill. Cunningham showed
Speaker 1: and Kurt, first of all, when you see and hear
Speaker 1: things from City Council that they are going to study
Speaker 1: this problem for the next two months, come up with solutions.
Speaker 2: What do we do? How do we do it?
Speaker 1: The four seventy one Big Mac Bridge is burned, according
Speaker 1: to Dan Hills, because of homelessness. And so does city
Speaker 1: council need another two months to study the issue or
Speaker 1: is there a court order ready to demand them to
Speaker 1: take action?
Speaker 3: Uh?
Speaker 2: Does the city council need in another two months? Bill?
Speaker 2: Absolutely not.
Speaker 3: You know, it's not like this, it's some problem that
Speaker 3: just suddenly arose. I mean, this is has been plaguing
Speaker 3: the city of Cincinnati. Uh, and do a part part
Speaker 3: to the lack of leadership coming from the Mayor's office
Speaker 3: and City council.
Speaker 2: So it's nothing new. They've known about it.
Speaker 3: This is just Hey, we're just going to do the
Speaker 3: status quo and just let things go and keep going
Speaker 3: down the path, Uh to become the San Francisco of
Speaker 3: the Midwest, if you will.
Speaker 1: I'm holding this order wed we spoke off the air
Speaker 1: to say this is not a new problem. What would
Speaker 1: be accurate because I'm holding an order signed by Hamley
Speaker 1: County Common Police or Judge Robert Ruhlman about six and
Speaker 1: a half years ago, entered August is sixteenth, twenty eighteen,
Speaker 1: requiring the city to do all kinds of stuff. Is
Speaker 1: this judgment entry still in effect and the permanent injunction?
Speaker 2: Is it still in an effect? It absolutely is an effect.
Speaker 3: If you look on the probably the second to last page,
Speaker 3: it clearly says this order shall be permanent and enforced
Speaker 3: by Cincinnati Police, et cetera.
Speaker 2: So it is a permanent order.
Speaker 3: It's in place, and the city has elected, i think,
Speaker 3: under this mayor to essentially ignore it, basically snub their
Speaker 3: nose at a state court order.
Speaker 2: That is a final judgment.
Speaker 3: It is an order that the city of Cincinnati actually
Speaker 3: agreed to. So it wasn't like we went it went
Speaker 3: to a trial and the judge kind of weighed the
Speaker 3: facts and the evidence.
Speaker 2: The city agreed to this.
Speaker 1: Why isn't it But why isn't it being impol We normally,
Speaker 1: when you order to do something and it's a permanent
Speaker 1: injunction and you ignore the order, bad things happen.
Speaker 2: So why is that not happening now? A good, excellent question,
Speaker 2: Uh don't have to answer. But you know, looking to.
Speaker 3: With with Pierce City, we're assessing probably maybe trying to
Speaker 3: get someone, a citizen here in Hamilton County to come
Speaker 3: in and say hey, because this is a this case
Speaker 3: was brought in the name of the State of Ohio.
Speaker 3: Wasn't an individual, it was the State of Ohio saying,
Speaker 3: you know, fell any drug use, et cetera is occurring
Speaker 3: on these encampments. And if you remember back in twenty eighteen,
Speaker 3: you know that's when we when we had these plethora
Speaker 3: of homelessness camps, you know, on Third Street, people trying
Speaker 3: to go to you know, Bengals games or whatnot, or
Speaker 3: Reds games, you know, having to go through this stuff.
Speaker 3: It was San Francisco, the Midwest, and you know, Joe Deeters,
Speaker 3: who at the time was county prosecutor, had the authority
Speaker 3: under state law to basically abate.
Speaker 2: What's called this nuisance at the nuisance what was going on.
Speaker 3: And Judge Rowman agreed, the city agreed, all three agreed. Well,
Speaker 3: and so you know, we want to see about going
Speaker 3: back into court, have some citizens say hey, we need
Speaker 3: to get this enforced and go to and address it
Speaker 3: with Judge Roman's successor, who at this time would be
Speaker 3: Judge pat Think a locker.
Speaker 1: Well, you're a lawyer.
Speaker 2: I'm a lawyer.
Speaker 1: Of course, Finny knows what he's doing. I talked to
Speaker 1: Attorney General David Yosh yesterday. He's willing to intervene, but
Speaker 1: someone must ask him to do it. And then the
Speaker 1: age asked the great American, who has standing to bring this?
Speaker 1: And I said, well, Prosecutor's office could. How they're a
Speaker 1: party in the city of Cincinnati. Now, the City Cincinnati
Speaker 1: is not going to request contempt of the City of Cincinnati,
Speaker 1: so it's up to the Prosecutor's office. And when I
Speaker 1: make inroads there, they tell me, well, you know it'll
Speaker 1: be a Connie Pillage problem in about two weeks. Explain
Speaker 1: how a private citizen, someone living in and around Stanbury's
Speaker 1: Park and Mount Washington. How could a private citizen arise
Speaker 1: even there if they're not a party to this law
Speaker 1: suit and force the city to do what they said
Speaker 1: they would do, which is clean out homeless camps as
Speaker 1: soon as they developed they must be cleaning immediately. Why
Speaker 1: how could a citizen jump into this lawsuit and say
Speaker 1: I'll charge the city with contempt?
Speaker 2: Right, It's simple.
Speaker 3: The state law that existed that Joe Deeterers brought this
Speaker 3: action on doesn't limit it to the prosecutor bringing such
Speaker 3: an action. This state law specifically says any person who
Speaker 3: is a citizen of the county in which the nuisance exists.
Speaker 2: May bring the action.
Speaker 3: So the state law actually gives any person in Hamilton
Speaker 3: County the authority, you know, to bring.
Speaker 2: The similar lawsuit.
Speaker 3: Or what we're assessing is, since we have a final
Speaker 3: judgment already on the boats signed by the judge, can
Speaker 3: that person come in and say, I would have the
Speaker 3: right initially to bring this suit.
Speaker 2: I want to join in and enforce this order that
Speaker 2: the city agreed to.
Speaker 1: Why haven't you done it already? Kurt Hartman? You and
Speaker 1: how come you guys? You infinitean? Why haven't you done
Speaker 1: it already?
Speaker 2: Well?
Speaker 3: Well, well, well, you know, look, got to assess a
Speaker 3: few things because one of the you know, kind of
Speaker 3: a ticker in this is at the same time there
Speaker 3: was a parallel federal wallsuit going on, uh and uh
Speaker 3: just recently this past year the city settled that, and
Speaker 3: trying to assess basically, you know, this federal state tug
Speaker 3: of war, you know, does did what the city agreed
Speaker 3: to in the federal lawsuit try to nullify what judge
Speaker 3: Rulman signed off on with basically some whichnows at the
Speaker 3: state court. And so we may have some serious constitutional
Speaker 3: issues in terms of federal supremacy where the states your sovereignty.
Speaker 2: Et cetera. So you know, you know, and and.
Speaker 3: The good litigator, I think you would agree, the good
Speaker 3: litigator kind of assesses those potential land mines at the
Speaker 3: outset of a case, as opposed to oops, I already
Speaker 3: tripped over a landmine.
Speaker 2: So that's part of the issue. We wanted to assess.
Speaker 3: Is this new case, this federal case, and what the
Speaker 3: city did there and were they really trying to deliver
Speaker 3: undermined this order.
Speaker 2: From this from Judge Roulman.
Speaker 3: I would not put anything. I would not put anything
Speaker 3: past this mayor, the city council and the city administration.
Speaker 3: So very well could try to do that.
Speaker 1: The new liberals on council may be recognizing they had
Speaker 1: this order from Hamlety County common Place Court created a
Speaker 1: conflict of law situation. I remember him in law school.
Speaker 1: Conflict of law was a big issue by starting a
Speaker 1: federal lawsuit to try to get the case out of
Speaker 1: common police court in the federal court. And are the
Speaker 1: two orders different in any significant extent.
Speaker 3: Uh, there does seem to be, like I said, just
Speaker 3: getting on that federal case. But it seems like the
Speaker 3: federal court they agreed instead of immediately calling the police,
Speaker 3: you got to call a social worker to come out
Speaker 3: and try to negotiate or talk with people who are
Speaker 3: using drugs in these homeless camps before you can charge
Speaker 3: them with a trespass or anything.
Speaker 2: And so it seems like the city was deliberately trying,
Speaker 2: you know.
Speaker 3: And the one question is do they even apprize the
Speaker 3: federal judge of that disorder that they were bound by
Speaker 3: under state law. So and this this is a a
Speaker 3: little bit more investigation.
Speaker 1: And Kurt Hartman, this isn't a federal I don't know
Speaker 1: what the jurisdiction was, Uh, to go to a federal.
Speaker 2: You'll love this.
Speaker 3: The claim was and it was brought by the homeless coalist.
Speaker 3: I believe in that that group in Cincinnati.
Speaker 2: Against the Sea.
Speaker 3: Their whole claim was removing people from homelessness or using
Speaker 3: drugs on property that they don't own is cruel and
Speaker 3: unusual position.
Speaker 1: Well, mum, Now there was a US Supreme Court decision
Speaker 1: on that about six months ago, and the Supremes decided
Speaker 1: it's a local matter and that there are not constitutional
Speaker 1: slash federal issues. Now, that came after the lawsuit in
Speaker 1: federal court, but the interaction of the US Supreme Court
Speaker 1: decision and involved Portland, Oregon, and there was some homeless
Speaker 1: coalition camp operators in Portland, Oregon that said there are
Speaker 1: federal issues here, which are clearly there are not. And
Speaker 1: the Supreme Court sent it back to Portland, Oregon claiming
Speaker 1: to do what you have to do. How about getting
Speaker 1: that US Supreme Court decision to overrule the Federal Court
Speaker 1: decision to implement this order of Judge Rulman.
Speaker 2: Does that make sense, Willie?
Speaker 3: You clearly see the whole lay of the lay, and
Speaker 3: that's the issue, you know, the Supreme Court supreme law,
Speaker 3: and it is a local issue. It's a police power,
Speaker 3: it's a health, safety and welfare issue. And you know
Speaker 3: from law school and practicing law, those are state and
Speaker 3: local issues.
Speaker 2: Those are not federal issues.
Speaker 1: In fact, we live at a time now where the
Speaker 1: US Supreme Court is telling the states under the ninth
Speaker 1: and tenth Amendment, we're done expanding the ability and power
Speaker 1: of federal courts over strictly local matters. And this is
Speaker 1: a strictly local matter without federal issues. And if you
Speaker 1: interrupt with the US Supreme Court's decision on the consent
Speaker 1: decree in the federal court case here, I think you're
Speaker 1: on firm legal footing. And how about this, Can something
Speaker 1: be done while Melissa Powers is still in office over
Speaker 1: the next two weeks. I have a sense that Connie Pillach,
Speaker 1: who's perceived to be a liberal, and I have no
Speaker 1: idea if she is at some point I want to
Speaker 1: meet with her. I have no idea if she is
Speaker 1: or is not. But I would think the Attorney General
Speaker 1: told me that if someone will contact him, he would
Speaker 1: seriously consider her intervening in the case. So when the
Speaker 1: prosecutor's office changes, the AG will be a named party,
Speaker 1: you know what I'm saying, And therefore what you know
Speaker 1: what I'm saying there?
Speaker 3: Yeah, yeah, I think I think right now, just because
Speaker 3: the change of all the change, you know, a personnel's
Speaker 3: occurring in about two weeks in our prosecutor's office, you know,
Speaker 3: missing Powers could proceed, you know, try to hold a contempt,
Speaker 3: et cetera.
Speaker 2: But by the time that happens, right new.
Speaker 3: Prosecutors in place, the would be a waste of resources,
Speaker 3: you know here here in December, but you very easily
Speaker 3: can make a call to the Attorney General Yost and say, hey,
Speaker 3: we've got this issue here in Cincinnati. It's been brewing.
Speaker 3: The city's ignoring it. You know, mister Yost, mister Attorney General,
Speaker 3: for the sake of the people of Hamilton County and
Speaker 3: the city of Cincinnati, we need you to come in
Speaker 3: and intervene.
Speaker 2: In this case.
Speaker 3: And you all see him coming in and intervening, I
Speaker 3: think would be a lot more stronger, it would be
Speaker 3: a lot more oomped to it, if you will, than
Speaker 3: a private citizen doing it.
Speaker 2: We're looking at having a.
Speaker 3: Private citizen do it, but if Dave Yost will do
Speaker 3: it that I think the court will take significant note
Speaker 3: of that issue.
Speaker 1: Well, lastly, I'll say this to you, Kurt Hartman. I
Speaker 1: will give you the private cell phone number of mister
Speaker 1: Attorney General David Yost, and before January rolls around, if
Speaker 1: he can intervene, away we go. And I think that's
Speaker 1: the approach to take, and then the people must be served.
Speaker 1: I'll give you the number off the air, I'll give
Speaker 1: him a call. I'll call I'll call you after three
Speaker 1: o'clock today, we'll talk further.
Speaker 2: I understand stand. Yeah, that's got to be addressed.
Speaker 3: I mean, right now you've got city leadership just ignoring
Speaker 3: the court order, and that's not acceptable. See, but what
Speaker 3: do you what do you expect when you elect nine
Speaker 3: progressives you'll and a mayor?
Speaker 2: What do you expect them to do?
Speaker 3: And like I said, they're trying to drive us to
Speaker 3: the San Francisco of the Midwest.
Speaker 2: Well, that's what we have to do.
Speaker 1: We have to have the mayor and share along comply
Speaker 1: with the law, well under contempt, which couldn't involve fines
Speaker 1: or imprisonment if you refuse to follow the law. Kurt Hartman,
Speaker 1: I'll be in touch with you after three o'clock. I'm
Speaker 1: gonna call yous first make sure I can give you
Speaker 1: his cell phone, and then if that's okay with him,
Speaker 1: away we go.
Speaker 2: Perfect.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Bill, God bless America. Let's continue. Bill Cunningham
Speaker 1: News Radio seven hundred WLW