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