This post, concerning misconduct by the police and court officials in Granville, Ohio, was submitted by Grady Travis Van Ness via the Cop Block submission page.
Discovery Information
Date of Incident: 08/03/2014
Individuals Responsible: Officer Fox, Sergeant Keith Blackledge
Outfit Involved: Granville, Ohio Police Department
Phone No.: (740) 587-1234
Fax No.: (740) 587-0128
Area Cop Block Affiliate: There are multiple Cop Block Affiliates in Ohio. To find the appropriate local group in your area consult the Cop Block Groups page.

 

I went to Mayor’s Court in August in regards to a speeding citation. I had let someone drive my motorcycle home one night from a bar because I was intoxicated, and was being responsible. The following day, this individual was cited for speeding. They apparently used my ID as my wallet/insurance/registration was in the saddlebags. The individual always wore a mask/sunglasses/head gear. The officer never verified the identity of the individual being cited, then stated in court he could identify me because he recognized my face from the citation interaction. There is a problem with that (aside from not even being there), the individual never removed the mask/sunglasses/head gear. The cop never saw their face. He didn’t verify any information from the license with them (which he admitted) and the ticket was not signed.

The cop lied under oath and the court still found me guilty of the offense. I had requested to have the ticket transferred to county before my trial began, multiple times, citing ORC 1905.032. They stated that I could not have it transferred because it wasn’t a felony. I have had every other ticket transferred my entire life in other jurisdictions.

I provided them with alibi information of my whereabouts both the night before, and the time of the incident. After which, the Prosecutor told me he would be filing perjury charges against me, insinuating that I was lying. I responded that the same will be expected of the officer once the dash cam footage is requested and admitted into the appeal.

I found out the following day that the Police Chief then went to my girlfriend’s ex-husband to tell her not to testify. She is my witness and alibi for the previous evening and the day of the citation.

This now amounts to both perjury AND witness tampering.

Just wanted to share the latest lies by an ‘officer’ and the courts.

(originally posted in Columbus Ohio Cop Block Facebook page, but I wanted to post here as well)

In an update… The Sgt of the PD tried to call my girlfriend again August 29th. He stated they needed to proceed with their ‘investigation’. She decided to return the call and was placed on hold for a long time, so she hung up. She received another call from a different officer a short time later. He approached the call talking about going to school together and acting like they were long time friends. She even had a Facebook friend request from him! He then proceeded to ask her questions about the case that she would have no information on. When she verified that we were together, he told her that she would be required to take the stand and she would be charged with perjury if she lied.

Shouldn’t any questions be performed by the prosecutor, not multiple police officers? She does not live/work in their jurisdiction either. As far as I am concerned, they are harassing her and attempting to intimidate her.

I made my request for discovery and a public information request as well (September 22nd). These requests included the dash camera footage the officer testified was in his cruiser. Upon request, I am now being told that there is “No Video” and that the “Camera was not working or was full.”

Part of my request was also to obtain any/all transcripts from the court proceedings (video, audio, transcripts, etc). I am told they did not maintain any recordings of the proceedings.

So, in other words, the cop cited someone that was not me, but used my information. The cop then proceeded to lie under oath and said he could identify my face as the person he cited (although I wasn’t there). He acknowledged there was dash cam footage of the citation, but now upon request it “doesn’t exist.” The Sgt. of the department contacted my witness’ ex-husband and ‘strongly encouraged’ her to not testify. She was threatened with perjury (as was I) if we testified. Upon discovery, they are now stating there is no dash cam footage. Also, they are stating there is no transcript of the court proceedings to show the officer lied in court.

This should show the level of corruption by the Granville Ohio PD and officers of the court.

No permission is needed to share this post, or any content housed at CopBlock.org.
Ideas have consequences – the more
good ideas are shared the better we all are.
Help fuel our efforts – donate
Bitcoin: 1D6hdGKcFfzciJaMSLU6X1Tq69fcCsEh65

152 Comments

  1. Sounds like you need to play a different angle now…. Is the court required to hold recordings of proceedings? If so how long? Is the officer required to have the dash cam footage, etc. Ouch. Fuck that situation……

    1. A different angle was played. Instead of hoping the officer would be honest and tell the truth, especially when he already lied in court about the alleged incident once, would have been a grave mistake.

      The officer was dinged on his use of his Lidar gun. He, nor the Granville PD was calibrating them correctly. So, the angle was two pronged: 1) the truth about not being there 2) the truth about the officer not utilizing his equipment correctly.

  2. A short analysis –

    The individual = You, you lying fuck. A third grader could read through that shit.
    Witness tampering = Told her not to lie for you.
    Perjury threat = Told her she better not lie for you.

    And seriously, cops shouldn’t be investigating? Really? You’re really going to say that? You, uh, ever heard of a cop known as a detective? You know what detectives do? Take a wild guess. I’ll give you a hint, part of it involves calling people up and asking questions.

    1. And here’s another thing I don’t understand – If the “individual” was so covered up (glasses, helmet, etc) as to be unrecognizable, what is the video going to show? Because unless you’re 5’3″ and white, and the video shows a 6’5″ black dude, it won’t prove or disprove your story. And did you tell the cops who you loaned your bike to? You know, I understand not wanting to rat out a buddy, but he did commit identity theft on you. Not too much of a pal.

      1. He doesn’t have the burden of proof. A defendant doesn’t “win” a court case. Trying to “win” and “prove” your case is usually going to be a strategic error for a defendant. If you have proof which contradicts the factual allegations, it’s generally not going to trial anyway(barring corruption or incompetence or some weird circumstance). The basic strategy for the defendant is to minimize the harm being done to themselves or the reward for the predators(in the case of a predatory lawsuit such as this one). And the best way to do so is to CHALLENGE THE EVIDENCE. The number 1 “weapon” the defendant has if it has gone to trial. Showing a guy on dash cam who never takes off glasses would contradict and impeach the testimony of the officer. For purposes of this sort of analysis, I presume the facts are what the reporter says they are, so I don’t presume to judge whether the person reporting is giving an accurate rendering of the facts. And I judge them in the light most favorable to the “complainant”(the one complaining about the cops on copblock, not necessarily the plaintiff on the ticket).

        1. If I try to “read between the lines” and speculate on additional factors not specifically in the story, that’s different. It’s important to be able to distinguish speculative analysis as speculative(in my opinion). Whatever Alex Jones gets criticized for this is basically what his real problem is with his reporting style. He makes no distinction between his evidence-based assertions and his speculative conspiracy theories. I just use him as an example but he’s just an extreme example. Reporters nowadays editorialize the story with their speculative opinions as the new standard of journalism (for better or worse). Pete himself does it sometimes. Fox news is loaded with this type of “journalism”. Basically, since bowling for columbine came out the whole paradigm that the journalist is supposed to be a neutral fact gatherer went out the window. The “better” is that it allows for a more diverse expression of viewpoint, the worse is that it blurrs the line between facts and opinions.

          1. I have to tell you, I have a hard time taking somebody seriously who says things such as “priests of the made up government religion”.

          2. Ok. I don’t presume to tell you what your religious beliefs should or shouldn’t be. It’s taken straight from the source of the philosophy. From the Social Contract by Rousseau(the medieval philosophy the modern day government religion and constitution is largely based on):

            “The second is good in that it unites the divine cult with love of the laws, and, making country the object of the citizens’ adoration, teaches them that service done to the State is service done to its tutelary god. It is a form of theocracy, in which there can be no pontiff save the prince, and no priests save the magistrates.” – Chapter 8 Social Contract

          3. Well, you’re obviously more of scholar than I am. I’m still having a hard time equating the gov with a religion. Who’s God? Or is there more than one? And God gets elected every few years? Wait, I know, the State is God, right? Well, at least He has the tithing down right. None of this “pass the collection plate” nonsense in that operation. Takes His cut right out of your paycheck.

          4. And I didn’t presume anything at all. I just said that I myself had a hard time with taking you seriously. Did I say nobody should take you seriously? No, I didn’t. Did I say that you should stop believing that? Once again, no, I didn’t.

          5. No what I mean is I don’t necessarily presume to tell you what to believe or even necessarily that I am “right” or that if you don’t accept my conclusion you are therefore “wrong” but I believe the data supports my conclusion. That is to say that the government is a religious institution and the belief system of the government is a religion based on scriptural dogma and a faith based belief in a higher power called “the state”.

          6. Well it is something I have been studying for a while . One of the other medieval philosophical works the modern governmental belief system is based on is “Leviathan or The Matter, Forme and Power of a Common Wealth Ecclesiasticall and Civil” .

          7. From Leviathan, Chapter XVII:

            The only way to erect such a common power, as may be able to defend them from the invasion of foreigners, and the injuries of one another, and thereby to secure them in such sort as that by their own industry and by the fruits of the earth they may nourish themselves and live contentedly, is to confer all their power and strength upon one man, or upon one assembly of men, that may reduce all their wills, by plurality of voices, unto one will: which is as much as to say, to appoint one man, or assembly of men, to bear their person; and every one to own and acknowledge himself to be author of whatsoever he that so beareth their person shall act, or cause to be acted, in those things which concern the common peace and safety; and therein to submit their wills, every one to his will, and their judgements to his judgement. This is more than consent, or concord; it is a real unity of them all in one and the same person, made by covenant of every man with every man, in such manner as if every man should say to every man: I authorise and give up my right of governing myself to this man, or to this assembly of men, on this condition; that thou give up, thy right to him, and authorise all his actions in like manner. This done, the multitude so united in one person is called a COMMONWEALTH; in Latin, CIVITAS. This is the generation of that great LEVIATHAN, or rather, to speak more reverently, of that mortal god to which we owe, under the immortal God, our peace and defence. For by this authority, given him by every particular man in the Commonwealth, he hath the use of so much power and strength conferred on him that, by terror thereof, he is enabled to form the wills of them all, to peace at home, and mutual aid against their enemies abroad. And in him consisteth the essence of the Commonwealth; which, to define it, is: one person, of whose acts a great multitude, by mutual covenants one with another, have made themselves every one the author, to the end he may use the strength and means of them all as he shall think expedient for their peace and common defence.

            And he that carryeth this person is called sovereign, and said to have sovereign power; and every one besides, his subject.

          8. The president is more like the pope. The pope gets changed over to a new guy once in a while(selected to officethrough church politics). Who is the “god” of the religion? Who are statists talking to when they pray to the flag? As Rousseau says, the “state” or “the states” united are the “god” or “gods” of the government, the “higher power” of the religion.

      2. The prosecutor and police were both notified as to possible individuals that might have been operating the vehicle. As for your comment about difference in size and color, that is irrelevant. What it proves is that the cop could not identify the suspect as he stated he was able to do. If he is willing to lie about identifying the suspect, what would prevent him from lying about anything else? Nothing.

        Isn’t it the officers job to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? Or is it his job to lie under oath to cover for his being inept? Isn’t this why officers are given the benefit of the doubt over every day citizens? Because they are considered to be ‘honest’ and upholding justice?

        You are also inserting that someone stated this person was a friend, when in fact, they were not.

    2. Well, since you would like to interject your own wording, I will be more than willing to answer your questions with facts.

      The individual = The lying fuck would be the cop. Let’s put it this way, had the officer told the truth, there would be no case. If the cop could not identify the individual, then there would be no case. Period.

      Witness tampering = you are assuming that the individual was lying, which was the same mistake the Granville PD made. Had they assumed the individual was telling the truth, they might have been able to prove their case and figure it out. They assumed incorrectly, as are you.

      Perjury threat = Yes, that is ABSOLUTELY witness intimidation. Once an individual has been listed as a WITNESS, they would need to contact that persons legal council. You do not have free reign to contact whomever you want at that point. Having multiple people call her is a blatant act of intimidation, especially as a witness.

      As for your comment about police investigation. The people calling were NOT detectives. However, again, once someone is listed as a witness, there is a procedure that is followed. Calling them directly, without legal council, is not the procedure… and I’m sure I don’t need to go into detail as to what the reason for not following procedure would be.

    1. There was more information on this case that sheds light onto the questions some seem to have. There appears to be a common misconception that the individual that operated the vehicle was a ‘friend’ of the complainant. That was not the case. That was brought out in court. I am sure there will be an update on this page. There were updates on the facebook page a while back.

      1. Friend is a loose interpretation based on the author’s claims that he had someone take his motorcycle home, especially when the author knew his wallet and ID were in the saddle bag.

        1. I’m callin a spade a spade here… I think Lucky is the author of the post.

          But that’s just me.

          1. I’d say the same

          2. Again, believe what you want.

        2. Unfortunately, interpretation leads to misunderstanding of facts. I’m not trying to insult you in any way, just trying to point out the facts. They said the individual
          “apparently used”, which I would assume means he didn’t realize this person would do that. Taking into consideration the complainant was intoxicated, I’m sure his best judgement was not being used at that particular moment. The mistake was likely on the complainants behalf for making an err in judgement for someone else driving his vehicle. Some may say the err was in the fact that he was intoxicated at all. However, the question isn’t weather or not he made the right judgement call the night before, but what happened with the citation. The night before was just providing information on how it came to be.

          1. So, the author wants the sympathy of being responsible on not riding his bike home while drunk, but also should be awarded sympathy of not having the best of judgment in his intoxicated state? He doesn’t get to have it both ways.

            Of course, there’s also the overlooked element of the author claiming to leave wallet and ID in his saddle bag. That element is far from believable.

  3. Wow.
    So…author guy…..let me ask. How do you know that the person riding your motorcycle never removed his sunglasses and mask? YOU say you weren’t there. So you can’t be a witness.
    Sounds like you should just pay your ticket and shush.

    1. Why would the rider be wearing sunglasses at night in the first place?

      1. motorcycle ninja assassin super villain duh

      2. What makes you believe the alleged incident was at night? It was somewhere around 7:00pm in August. It is not dark outside.

        1. Nowhere in the story is time of day written – only “one night”

          1. The very next sentence states “The following day…”

          2. “The following day” is about as pointless to your assertion as saying “10 minutes later” or even “after that…”

          3. It appears to be rather consequential as you raised the question of why the rider would be wearing sunglasses at night. Stating “the following day” shows that it was not at night. However, “10 minutes later” would assume it was still night time as it does not become day time within a period of 10 minutes.

            Curious, what would you call a pair of ‘clears’? Would it be more appropriate to just say glasses? How about yellow or amber tinted glasses. What do you call those? Generally, I hear either ‘glasses’ or sunglasses’ and they are interchanged in conversation no matter what the lenses are like. Regardless, I am sure he is referring to eye protection one way or another.

          4. I don’t know what you’re on… But saying “the following day” does not show that it was at night. I could easily say “I was bitten by a mosquito around noon that day. The following day my finger swelled up like a balloon.” An argument in semantics isn’t gonna work here. Further. YOU said at night. Not evening (which would be the case if it were 1900 on a day in August).

            As for eye pro? You said “sunglasses” so it’s safe to assume that they are tinted dark.

          5. Well, then I guess the same could be said for you… I don’t know what you’re on… but saying DAY usually refers to a time during hours it is light outside. Otherwise, I would assume the complainant would have said “the following night.”

            Sunset on August 3rd 2014 was at 2044 on that day. The ticket was somewhere in the 1900’s (not sure of the exact time without looking it up). Sunset wasn’t until at least an hour after the citation, which means daylight. So, that is incorrect to state that it would not be the case in August. In fact, all sunset times in August were in the 20xx range.

            I guess you would have to do more than casually glance at something. You would actually need to pay attention to detail to come to the conclusion that the time being referenced was the citation time. That time was in the 19xx range. You also incorrectly assumed that night time in Ohio was by that time, when it actually was much later.

            This is the difference between someone looking into facts, and someone making assumptions. Now, I won’t turn this into a bickering battle between you and I, but I will prove when someone is wrong if they are trying to be a jerk about something.

    2. The individual that the officer states was cited attempted to gather information on the incident. That was the information obtained. They do not have to be there to state that they never removed gear. Of course, the dashcam footage would have proven if that was the truth or not…. but it mysteriously because damaged when requested. Doesn’t it make more sense that the missing footage proved the complainant was right and also proved the officer lied under oath? Otherwise, what would the harm be in supplying that proof?

      1. I think you’re the whiner who wrote this post…

          1. It’s an easy assertion to make. You know too many facts related to this post for a common reader to know and your online persona supports other things related to this post.

          2. I know just as many facts as you can have readily available. A copy of the case recording is available from the county municipal court for $3 and they will ship it to you. Read the post, watch the recording, and you will have the same information.

          3. ARE YOU SURE YOU’RE NOT THE NINJA ASSASIN SUPER VILLAIN FROM THE STORY?

  4. Why am I supposed to give a shit. Everyone knows your so full of shit man. Also why do you need to bring you girlfriend into all of this, isn’t it hard on her being your sister and all……

    1. Wow.. big burn there from a big man. *rolleyes*

      The girlfriend was “brought into this” because she was the person the complainant was with at the time of the alleged infraction. She was also the person the complainant was with the previous night when the motorcycle was left with the other individual.

  5. forget asking for the case to be moved file a counter complaint in federal court and remove all the jurisdiction. by doing that all will be part of discovery and you can get all the documents and case notes to battle this illegal action

      1. OH LOOK SHORT COMMENT THIS TIME.. NOT LIKING TO HAVE TO WIGGLE FOR ME EACH ENCOUNTER lol WELL THATS OK YOU ALWAYS SEEM TO HANG YOURSELF WITHOUT ME L8ER

        1. fraud:
          No….it’s just a short appeal for you to stop the stupid.

          You are completely clueless.
          How’s you radio show going? I listened that one time and just got a headache from the dumb.

          But go on guy. Keep telling everyone that everything is trumped by misapplied USC. That works just as well as RAD denying the courts authority by saying the law is just a word on a paper….but then suggesting someobe Sue under that same law.

          You 2 are just a sad joke.

          1. doing well i am on 2 stations already and the posting on youtube is just one of the shows being produced. everything i do is not posted there nor it will be. mean while you still have to show that any of the case laws i have posted have been overturned. in addition have you paid attention to st louis and the federal court there? funny thing the federal judges just slammed the police for smoke and tear gas.. the room was vary hushed and exploded in the hall afterward. a huge victory for the people but you dont pay attention to much.

          2. The court’s authority? What do you mean by “court’s authority”? What do you mean by “court”? A building? How does a building have authority? Or do you mean lawyers who dress up like Harry Potter when you talk about “the court”?

      2. Not sure who your comment was related to, but the complainant above won the case. It was dismissed.

        1. In the story it says “the court found” him guilty. That’s what I’m going off in talking about a “verdict”. Is the story not accurate in that regard?

    1. Then when the lawyers move to dismiss as per the Heck doctrine and the judge goes with it and tosses the case you are basically right back where you started, minus the time and money you put into it. I think this notion that you have that you can just go in and sue away a previous verdict is somewhat misguided. From what I know, that’s not how it works. The verdict would have to reversed on appeal before doing what you say I believe. And them refusing to move it to a more competent court would or at least could be grounds for such an appeal. Especially if there were also a challenge of bias or incompetence of the judge. Which there almost always is, because the judge is part of a religious cult and has taken a religious oath to the constitution which is a faith-based religious scripture, not something which is falsifiable and based on evidence. Based on what I know of the government religion, that’s how it’s “supposed” to work according to the scriptures, of course the priests of the made-up government religion just make up the rules and change them as they see fit anyway. Can you cite any cases where someone went and challenged a conviction on a ticket ” by filing a federal civil complaint and “remov”ing “jurisdiction” (as opposed to doing so through an appeal process)? Would be real interested if you know of any such precedent?

      1. NOT AT ALL THEY LOST JURISDICTION PRIOR TO THE OFFENSE HE WAS CHARGED WITH. AND IN ADDITION IT IS FILED AS A COUNTER CLAIM SO THAT THE JURISDICTION BASED ON PROTECTED RIGHT WOULD NEED TO BE HEARD FIRST. THE EXERCISE OF A RIGHT CAN NOT BE CONVERTED IN TO A CRIME.

        1. Ya that’s all good in theory. The thing is this case already resulted in a verdict. You can’t reverse a verdict just by filing a civil suit after-the-fact. It would fly in the face of stare decisis. In the case you linked to it doesn’t say the law student is trying to reverse a verdict, from the article it’s not entirely clear but it seems to imply the tickets from the cop were already dropped. If that is the case, then that would make it a totally different situation than here where the ticket wasn’t tossed but instead resulted in conviction.

          1. U.S. Const., Art. VI, cl. 2; Maryland v Louisiana,
            451 US 725, 746; 101 S Ct 2114; 68 L Ed 2d 576 (1981) reveals that,
            “Where a state statute conflicts with, or frustrates, federal law, the
            former must give way.”

            A Judgment Entered Without Subject Matter
            Jurisdiction is Void.
            3. If a court has no jurisdiction
            over the subject matter, the judgment is void. Pifer v. Pifer, 31
            N.C. App. 486, 229 S.E.2d 700, 702 (1976).
            4. A judgment entered
            by a court which lacks subject matter jurisdiction is void. Marshall
            v. Marshall, 240 Neb. 322, 482 N.W.2d 1 (1992). Also, it is the
            longstanding rule that such a void judgment may be attacked at any
            time in any proceeding. Id. ; Drennen v. Drennen, 229 Neb. 204, 426
            N.W.2d 252 (1988); Lammers Land & Cattle Co. v. Hans, 213 Neb.
            243, 328 N.W.2d 759 (1983) . It may be impeached in any action,
            direct or collateral. Marshall v. Marshall. Stanton v. Stanton, 146
            Neb. 71, 18 N.W.2d 654 (1945); Hassett v. Durbin, 132 Neb. 315, 271
            N.W. 867 (1937). See, also, Shade v. Kirk, 227 Neb. 775, 420 N.W.2d
            284 (1988). That is because a void judgment is in reality no judgment
            at all. Marshall v. Marshall.

          2. A party affected by void judicial action need not
            appeal. State ex rel. Latty, 907 S.W.2d at 486. If an appeal is
            taken, however, the appellate court may declare void any orders the
            trial court signed after it lost plenary power over the case.. “A
            void judgment is a nullity from the beginning, and is attended by
            none of the consequences of a valid judgment. It is entitled to no
            respect whatsoever because it does not affect, impair, or create
            legal rights.” Ex parte Seidel, 39 S.W.3d 221, 225 (Tex. Crim. App.
            2001).

    2. Regardless, the case was transferred to the County on appeal and was dismissed. The complainant above won the case.

  6. This should be real easy, have the guy that was “allegedly” driving the bike, testify that it was he driving and not you.
    I had a similar situation many yrs ago. My buddies & I were at a softball tournament, we had beers after & I asked one of the guys that rode in my car to drive as he hadn’t been drinking. We got pulled over, don’t remember why, but the driver received a ticket for NOLOP (No Operators License On Person) and another violation. He explained to the officer that it was my vehicle, he rode with me and hadn’t planned on driving anywhere and had left his wallet at home, I tried explaining that as well to no avail. He contested the ticket and received an appearance date. I of course went with him. Before the hearing we met with the Prosecutor and officer, explained the situation and the Prosecutor commended us for being smart, admonished the officer and dismissed all charges. The officer was pissed.

    1. That’s similar? Well, both drivers got tickets, anyway. Other than that, way different.

    2. I agree, it would be easy if that person was willing to do so. However, why would that person be willing to incriminate themselves in a crime that nobody seems to be able to prove, and one that an officer is swearing under oath the other person was definitely the one that was there?

      Your example is between two friends. These two individuals were not friends.

  7. I’d try to supeona the court transcripts of what the officer actually said in court. Then get phone records from your Girlfriend and her ex husband of those calls to try and prove they indeed did call. your friend too needs to back you up on this if he backs out because he’s scared he aint no friend. Like others hav stated they can investigate but not imtimidate which I believe they probably did. So just asking questions isn’t bad but saying they will be arrested for pugery is a bit overboard. I dont think they should be telling her that until she’s in court. Without a recording of the actual conversation your kind of screwed so if you can prove the cop said that in court which would be on the transcripts then they are lying and erased the recording. Hence one reason even if all cop wear body cams things like this can and will happen!
    Maybe next time walk or push the bike far enough untill you’ve sobred up dunno but I recomend doing at least some of what I sugest and I wish you luck!

    1. Is pugery like buggery? If so, it’s a bad thing. That’s what slappy likes to watch movies of, when it involves sheep.

        1. I’d reply – Look up “Planck time”. I’ll lose about that much sleep worrying about you or your moronic posts. And really, point them out? Really? LOL.

          1. You’re much too ineffectual and weak to cause any upset, and I could give a giant hairy shit about anything you post, homer.

          2. It’s actually your own arrogance that implies that, douchebaggie. I could give a fuck if you care, don’t care, kinda care, who fucking cares???????

          3. And you’re also still a douchebag.

    2. I agree 100% with most everything you said. Let me provide some insight…

      Subpoena: The court record was requested as a FOIA request, as well as for discovery. It was denied because the stated they were “not a court of record”. In other words, they state that they didn’t record the hearing. (which only works in their favor, never the defendants).

      Phone records are easy enough to obtain and they would have been readily available if needed. Of course, that would be for a perjury/misconduct case, and not for the traffic citation.

      Investigation: The investigation they were claiming was AFTER a court appearance where the individual was listed as a witness. If they were to contact this individual, they would need to set up an interrogatory and both sides would be allowed to have legal council at the proceeding. The witness would be able to be provided with legal advice at that time as well. This was intimidation, pure and simple.

      As for recordings, there were none. It would all come down to who would tell the truth under oath. She could testify as to her conversation, but the ex would have to testify that the sgt spoke with him. The sgt could be called onto the stand, but you would have to hope he would tell the truth as well. Given the lies that have come out of that PD to this point, I wouldn’t hold my breath on him being the only honest one… especially given the statements that he was doing the intimidating.

      Cameras: There was supposedly dash cam footage, but it apparently “disappeared” when requested. Footage is only good if you can obtain it. If they don’t want you to obtain it, it becomes “damaged” or “wasn’t recording”.

      The best thing to do with that bike would have probably been to leave it and hope it wasn’t stolen. If it was, hope there is full coverage on it and the insurance company pays out. Other than that, it would be best not to consume alcohol.

      1. What is the docket/case number?

          1. That docket/case number is for Licking County Municipal, not for Granville Mayor’s Court.

  8. You were nailed for speeding. Accept it. You claim your “friend” was driving your bike. Didn’t he have ID with him? Instead he used yours to say he was you? Come on, you were busted for speeding.

    1. JC, where do you see that anyone claims it was a “friend” operating the vehicle. You, like the Granville PD, are assuming the complainant was there. Assume the person is telling the truth and you just might find a different avenue to take. Bottom line, they should have offered a plea. The majority of individuals out there would accept a plea to do away with the whole thing. They did not, so the choice would be to plead guilty to something you didn’t do, or to fight and hope justice prevails.

      1. Are you serious? “Assume the person is telling the truth”? The so called author of this fictional piece lets someone drive his bike home. Would you just let anyone drive your bike home? or use your ID? The story is a joke.

        1. Fictional? Oh, you were there. So, you know better than the person that submitted the information? Didn’t think so. Have you obtained a copy of the court proceedings from the municipal court? I didn’t think so.

          Curious, have you ever done something you wouldn’t normally do while intoxicated? I’m sure you have. Would I let someone drive my bike home? I have, more than once. Use my ID? Not at all, but the complainant didn’t knowingly let him use his ID.

          1. Were you there? It’s called taking responsibility. The author supposedly let someone drive his bike home. Something happened and his ID ect.. was used. All I can say is the guy is an idiot. He put himself in this mess and now must answer for his actions. SUch is life.

          2. That ‘idiot’ successfully fought the charges and won, pro se. He took responsibility for what he actually did, got too drunk to drive home. That was his actions. What he shouldn’t have to answer for is someone else doing something illegal. Which, in this case, is the guy using his ID and the cop lying under oath. Now, those two should answer for their actions. I doubt either one of them will ever be held accountable at this point.

          3. Slappy (JC) is one of the biggest liars on this site. If he says you’re lying, it’s coming from an expert.

          4. Put it to music and you could be a Spice girl. Rain man Spice.

          5. Oh gee, such a burn. LOL. Summers Eve Disposable Douchebag Hypocrite. That’s you, slaps

          6. Wow, you must be in third grade Rain man.

  9. I’ll hedge a bet. It seems you are simply trying to get out of the ticket(s) by pretending to be your “friend.” I notice that said friend has not leapt to your defense saying he was the one on the bike or testifying they were with you at the time of the stop. How odd.

    Now you played your hand and possibly perjured yourself. Hard to back out of it now. I say go all in, and claim that its an Admiralty court and it has no jursidiction over you, and toss in a hyphen in between your first and last names. It works, trust me.

    1. How could you not mention the fringe on the flag? HOW COULD YOU?

    2. Why would this persons friend come forward and incriminate themselves?

      1. Well, assuming the whole “it was somebody else” story was true, which it isn’t, but assuming it was, this friend wouldn’t come forward. He’s the same guy that used his buddies ID to avoid the summons.

      2. Exactly true, but again, like so many others that seem to think so… nobody claimed the person operating the vehicle was a “friend”. So, that will further exemplify why the person wouldn’t come forward.

        1. Nah, we’re just tried of hearing your bullshit and always question why you come here. But please, CS, continue…

          1. Thanks, I will….

          2. I know. Thanks for the revenue.

          3. I’m a generous god.

          4. A God now? That’s another level of “special.”

            Let me know how that works out for you. And thanks again for the reply.

          5. common sense is the god of pig cock suckers. and yes Im angry, angry that police get away with everything, And angry that people defend them no matter what.

    3. Again, nobody claimed the person operating the vehicle was a “friend.” So, it is not as odd as you claim that this individual did not come forward. Why would they want to incriminate themselves for something the cops are saying they didn’t do. The cops are so adamant about it that they even testified in court that it was definitely the complainant.

      There was no perjury on the behalf of the complainant. The perjury was in that of the office claiming to see the complainants face.

      1. Not a friend? So the writer gave his bike to a complete stranger? OK.

        1. Maybe you should request a copy of the court transcripts from Licking County Municipal, as I have. It costs $3 and they mail the video to you. The complainant was in a motorcycle club, someone from a different club operated the motorcycle. The other club was not forthcoming about their member/operator. I would view that as more of a mutual acquaintance than a stranger, but definitely not a friend that would step up to assume responsibility.

          1. I’m VERY familiar with MCs and how they operate. I’m a member of one and I also operate in a city with more than 20 individual MCs. One 1%er club and the rest are generally affiliated with it. Now, I’ll give you that a member of one MC may hand the keys to a member of another to drive his bike home, but this being August, it doesn’t ring completely true.

            Remember… I know how this works – first hand – so I needn’t go into full details here.

          2. I am very familiar with how they operate as well. I have been in clubs for the past 10-15 years. Given your 31 Bravo moniker, you were (may still be) a cop. It is a different world for you from many others.

            I’m not sure I understand your statement about “This being August, it doesn’t ring completely true.” What would August have to do with someone letting someone else operate their motorcycle?

          3. August means it’s less likely that someone who owns a motorcycle would be out and about with his club brothers (or friends) without his scoot. This lessens the chances that you actually gave the bike to someone else (other statements in your story support this theory).

            But I’m giving you the benefit of the doubt and believing you actually did hand over the keys. You know, to be responsible.

          4. You are still assuming I am the complainant? I will let that go and feed into it if it makes things easier to talk about.

            The month of the year means absolutely nothing in regards to not being able to ride when intoxicated. In fact, I would assume the contrary to be true. In the summer months, you would be more inclined to be out with your brothers and having a good time, which (let’s face it), likely includes alcohol. Now, the complainant had his motorcycle when he was out. The time in question was 1) if he went home with his motorcycle or not after drinking…and 2) did he have it the following day? (If so, when?).

            Let’s feed into your sarcasm further that the keys weren’t handed over by the complainant to be responsible. What other reasons could there be to hand over the keys? Several. His brothers thought he was too intoxicated to make it back safe? His girlfriend talked him out of driving intoxicated? He was too intoxicated to realize he was even giving his keys to someone else? The reasons for handing over the keys could be many. The question becomes, did someone else have the keys and was that individual operating the motorcycle? Was it even the same individual that took the keys that was operating the motorcycle? We don’t know, and it doesn’t sound as if the complainant knows either. BUT, I bet the complainant is closer to knowing than we are.

          5. When I say the keys were handed over, it doesn’t have to be a physical hand-to-hand transaction. You gave care, custody and control of the bike.

            The rest is you trying to play semantics.

          6. Okay, so my point was that the complainant likely gave up his keys one way or another. So, it sounds like you are saying the same thing now.

            So, if you believe the complainant gave up his keys one way or another, how can you then say that it was the complainant operating the motorcycle?

            Isn’t facts and the legal system almost completely based on semantics? Yes, I am definitely arguing semantics. It is extremely important when attempting to separate facts.

          7. Semantics aren’t necessary here as this isn’t a court of law. Its the court of public opinion which is a lot tougher to succeed in

          8. What was the docket/case number?

          9. Ask t. He’s the clerk of courts. lol

          10. 14TRD10238 (Licking County Municipal)
            015909 (Granville Mayor’s Court)

          11. Yes. Apparently the court of public opinion is based off of useless assumptions and partial information, as well as ignorant bias. That pretty much explains why it goes to court in the first place, where it is based on fact and detailed information, as well as educated awareness.

    4. You don’t have to claim all that Admiralty court crap. That’s going to far down the rabbit trail than needed and just muddies the issue. It suffices to claim that it’s an civil action in an administrative court of no record, the nature of the cause is civil tort against you for violating admin traffic code. It’s a civil violation, not a crime, and as such you have to consent and contract with them to be tried in a court of no record in this manner, by a judge who is acting administratively and not judicially (court of no record means it’s the nature of the cause is civil and not criminal, thus the judge IS NOT acting in his judicial capacity when holding court of no record, he is acting as an admin bureaucrat). This is the reason for denying them jurisdiction with your consent to the process, and forcing them to attempt to change the nature of the cause to criminal, switching jurisdiction to a county criminal court, to which no statute to prosecute as a criminal nature exists. They will either dismiss or try to call your bluff to plead out before their hand is forced, but you will eventually prevail as they cannot prevail in converting the civil citation, which wasn’t reportable to criminal history to begin with because it is a suit in equity court by an INCORPORATED municipality, into a criminal matter where penal statutory charge does not even exist, .

  10. Sorry… So many things in this farce don’t ring true.

    Firstly… Sunglasses at night? Nah this ain’t a Cory Hart song..

    Secondly… I don’t know a cop ANYWHERE who doesn’t make a motorcycle riding detainee dismount his cycle and remove all headgear for positive identification against photo ID.

    Bullshit story #9829832982

    1. Well I’ve been stopped and seen multiple people stopped on motorcycles. I’ve also seen cops not require the rider to remove head gear as long as the names of the license and registration match. So you must not know many cops, or you just don’t ride a motorcycle. It happens more than most would think.

      1. I call absolute bullshit on that assertion.

        1. You don’t know that many cops. Must be it. How many you know? 3 or 4?

          1. I know a LOT. But what does that have to do with the price of tea in China?

          2. If I have to explain it’s not funny anymore.

    2. Again, what makes you believe the alleged incident was at night? It was somewhere around 7:00pm in August. It is not dark outside.

      Secondly, I agree with sivien, you must not know many cops. Fact is, most don’t verify information when driving a car or motorcycle. They simply ask you if the information on your license is correct. Someone that is using someone else’s license would say what? No? Of course they are going to say yes! Why would you say it wasn’t?

      Bullshit response#9829832982

      1. Good God, get a grip. As a police officer myself, it’s STANDARD PRACTICE to have someone wearing a helmet, mask and gasses to remove them for positive ID.

        1. Really? In any ticket I have ever received, it has always been the same exact process. “Is the information on your license current?”…”Yes”… “Okay, I’ll be right back.”

          That doesn’t mean the identification process you are referring to isn’t the CORRECT process. It just means it isn’t typically followed. Now, I’ll say this, I have only have one citation for my motorcycle and I was clocked by an airplane… which I find to be total bs, but whatever. I paid my fine and went on my way. During that citation, I was never asked to remove anything, simply verify my information in the same manner I stated above.

          Any ticket I’ve received in a 4-wheel vehicle has been the same process. I have never been asked to remove a hat or glasses or anything else. I also had my information verified in the same manner. Now, I doubt that I am the only one this happens to. You mean to tell me, these different cops from different jurisdictions and different organizations are only going against SOP with me?

          Now, if I held you to the same standard you have been holding me to on these posts, then I would say that makes you a liar for saying that. However, I am paying attention to your wording and nowhere did you say that they actually follow SOP, just that it is SOP. Nice choice of words.

          1. 31:
            Guy…..let me say stop. Reason and Lucky are strangers.
            Let’s examine why.
            -He’s been in a MC for 15 years….and he thinks that a meme er of 1 club would just give his bike to the member of a different club. That doesn’t happen.
            – Notice how he never answered my simple question about how he knows the rider never removed his helmet and sunglasses? How does he know if he was t there?
            -Verifyng info on a stop. What does he think it should be…a DNA sample on every stop? The question about the info being correct has to do with is that the current address…nothing more. As for ID’ing them….that depends on the helmet and da e covering. Not too many MC guys where a full face helmet and are usually easily ID’d from a quick look.
            – the ticket was “dismissed”. Ok. The calibration wasn’t correct. That has NOTHING to do with his assertion that the cited party was t really the rider.

            Overall he is just playing around with what he called facts….which by his own statements he can’t know.

            Lucky: BTW guy…..tickets get dismissed a the time for lots of things. It doesn’t mean that the officers did something wrong or that they violated anyone’s rights.

          2. You are absolutely incorrect about people not letting anyone ride their motorcycle, simply because of 1% status. What it comes down to is trust. For instance, it could be that he trusted someone in this other club and they were the ones to have some member ride it. I don’t know, it doesn’t sound like he knows, and you guys definitely don’t know either. When you watch the proceedings, he stated about how he no longer associates with this other club (in part) because of this incident. He also admits that he made an err in judgement on letting someone he doesn’t know much about ride his motorcycle. What you all seem to be forgetting is that he is innocent until proven guilty. The cop can’t prove he was there.

            As for your verifying on a stop, it is the cops responsibility to make sure the individual is who they say they are. No, a DNA test is not required to do some basic work in making sure the person being cited is who they say they are. I doubt a stranger would have had his address, social, or other information all memorized that quickly. This could have solved the entire thing. Of course, that would require actual work and not just revenue generation.

            You are right on the fact that the equipment was not calibrated correctly having nothing to do with not being there. This was two completely different directions, presumably because the cop lied under oath the first time around. He probably needed a second angle to work on since he couldn’t trust him to tell the truth the second time around.

            Let me present something else to you, since I have seen the recording… So, the officer was able to remember every single detail about that day (distance, calibration methods and times, visual estimation, if there were any errors on any of his equipment, type of motorcycle, entire conversation, etc)… but yet he couldn’t remember a single article of clothing the complainant was wearing? The complainant asked because that would have been an easy way to prove it wasn’t him. Wouldn’t you think that two different MC’s would be wearing two different patch sets? The officer also tried to cover up his testimony to the judge about not calibrating his equipment. Once he realized there was a problem, he tried to change his story from not calibrating before and after the stop to he was calibrating before and after each stop. There are other instances of the officer changing his testimony while on the stand. Watch the recordings and see.

            For someone that you keep saying was lying, the complainant never back tracked on anything he said. He never changed his story, and never had to correct himself. The officer did. Now, who would that indicate is more likely to be telling the truth?

          3. Lucky:
            Oh. Must be a really sweet bunch of MC gang guys you run with. Heck….I can’t think over very many non-MC guys that would let someone ride their bikes. I worked gangs for a long time and I have NEVER known a MC gang member that would even let a nonmember get near their bike….let alone ride it.

            Dude you have to keep in mind…..this little tale that you are weaving is all,you doing. No one else is telling this story…..you are making it all up, not us.
            You still have never answered how you know all,of this when you say you weren’t there.
            You are the one selling that your buddy let someone…..from a different MC….who wasn’t his friend….ride his bike home and have his wallet.
            You are the one saying that the officer never IDd the driver.
            That’s you selling all of that nonsense. When others don’t by it….don’t blame us.

          4. Gang guys? Well, that’s a conversation ender right there since you obviously know zip about MC life with that comment. So, it makes much more sense as to why you can’t grasp the concept of anything to do with an MC or other individuals. You must be one of those that latched onto SOA and tout it as the real deal. Over 99% of MC’s are nothing like that. In fact, the complainant’s MC is a military based MC. So, if I understand you correctly, you are calling us vets (his MC and my MC) “gang members” because we ride motorcycles. Yeah. Knowledgeable on the subject are ya? Gang Task Force you say??

            Again, you haven’t listened to a single word that was said. Not by me, and not by the complainant. You are still stuck on conjecture and bias Which makes more sense now that I know you have a complete lack of knowledge. I have answered your questions, as much as I care to. How do I know everything I have written about? You can know just as much by reading the initial posting here, reading the entire posting thread on Facebook (which tells even more), and watching the court proceedings. I have done all three. You have limited yourself to the introductory post and that is it. You don’t care to know the entire story because you don’t want to, which likely is a result as you don’t want cops to be found in the wrong.

            Nowhere does it say he let HIM have his wallet. What was said is that his wallet was in his saddlebags of the bike (along with the registration and insurance). Let me guess though, you have never heard of anyone putting their wallet in a saddlebag before? I have done it numerous times myself.

            The only ones that have argued, and continue to, are cops. You and Bravo are mostly it. Sorry if I don’t believe the word/opinion of a cop that acts as if no cop lies. So, I do blame you. I blame you for ever holding a job and still being that naive, or for defending someone no matter how much evidence there is against them (the cop) simply because they are a cop. I guess which of those two it is depends on if you are naive or simply like the cop in this post (lie for the desirable end result).

          5. Lucky:
            Oh…my bad I guess. You must live in that fantasy land where the HAs and Pagans hold hands all the time. And where because they hold Toys for Tots rallies. Like that somehow makes everyone in the know forget that they are some of the most CIOLENT criminals around. That they move most of the meth in the nation. Control most of the prostitution.
            Maybe your in the super sweet MC clubs that just play dress up like the HAs.
            While I don’t currently ride (time is what it is)….I started out on dirt bikes as a 9 year old and rode for almost 40″years. I don’t know of very many non-MC guys that would let someone else ride their bike. And again…..never even heard of a MC. Member that ever let a nonmember even get close to their bikes.
            I don’t even know anyone that would let a stranger drive their car home for them.

            But YOU are selling the story that this non member, non friend, was giving both his bike and his wallet. AND you say that you weren’t there BUT you still know that the officer never IDd the rider.

            As for arguing with you. Dude I couldn’t care less about this guy, you, or the ticket. Who cares if a ticket got dismissed. The problem….as with most CBers….is that the story that YOU are telling is just nonsense.

          6. I highly doubt you were in a Gang Task Force with your comments…lol. Sounds like tv if you ask me. No, the HA’s and Pagans don’t hold hands, I’m sure. So, here you are focusing on the HA’s when you don’t even know the names of the clubs that were involved? Wow, solid work there guy. Again, you are commenting repeatedly about what you THINK HA does or doesn’t do, yet you are absolutely clueless, except for what you think you know from shows like Gangland and Youtube. Your comments are almost laughable at this point. As of now, OL and AV are the senior clubs in central Ohio, not HA. That’s not saying it won’t change, but pointing out your clueless knowledge base that you are attempting to use to argue irrelevant points.

            …again, “I” am selling the story? Oh, it says it was posted by Lucky Omerta up above there, right? The ‘story’ as you call it is an actual account of facts, not some made up story like you keep presenting. You still have yet to provide any information to backup anything you have said. I on the other hand, have.

            Nothing about this posting is non-sense. Again, you still have yet to do ANY research, ANY fact finding, or even so much as watch the court proceedings. If that is ANY indication of the way you conducted yourself as a cop, it is no wonder people are still complaining about the police. Sloppy work is sloppy work. Period.

          7. I do not buy the fact that you were not required to remove anything that obstructed your face. If you wore a skull cap helmet, fine. I rarely ask anyone wearing that style of helmet to remove it. However you wrote in this “article” that it had a mask. Now, that could simply be a bandana (which I often wear… bugs in the face…. yuck) and I’m sure the mask was ordered to be removed for positive identification purposes.

          8. Well, I guess you don’t have to buy it, but it is fact. Any time I have ever been pulled over for anything I have NEVER been required to remove any article of clothing (gear, masks, etc). Maybe you do things by the book, but I can guarantee you that most do not.

            Again, you are assuming I ‘wrote the article’. Notice my single speeding conviction wasn’t in the same place or same date as the story. But, again, think what you’d like. My single ticket was in South East Ohio, not central.

            I typically wear a bandana on the top of my head, a neoprene mask on my face, and some form of glasses on my eyes. I have never been asked to remove them. When driving in a 4-wheel vehicle, I am referring to a hat and glasses. The only thing you can see is my mouth, chin, cheeks. I have never been asked to remove those either.

            That being said, I don’t doubt the complainant wasn’t asked to remove his either. Cops are too lackadaisical when it comes to their jobs because they are too often slam dunk with everything being geared in the cops favor.

  11. I would file for a trial de novo ( http://law.justia.com/codes/ohio/2006/orc/jd_190525-7c17.html )
    A trial de novo is a new trial and nothing used in the mayor’s court can be used in the new trial.
    If you would like some free assistance with this, please contact me. I am NOT an attorney, nor will I give you legal advise. However, I will work with you (free) to help you win.

    1. With the Mayor’s Court supposedly not being a court of record (According to Granville), there was nothing recorded in court to be used in the following appeal. So, in a sense, it is already a trial de novo.

      The complainant DID win his case by the way.

      1. It’s a court of no record, but that doesn’t mean they don’t have transcripts and record the proceedings. They usually do. Court of no record means it’s not reportable to criminal record pal, not that they don’t have audio recordings from the bench. Trust me…they do when it suits their argument. They produce them pretty fuckin fast in those cases. Maybe FOIA.

        1. No. Mayors courts (for city ordinance violations) rarely record the proceedings. A ‘court of no record’ is a court that does not keep transcripts of any type.

        2. FOIA requests have gone completely unanswered by myself as well from Granville. I am sure the complainant was probably telling the truth in that Granville isn’t forthcoming with the requested information, or flat out doesn’t even respond (as was the case with what I experienced with my request).

      2. An appeal is a paper process and is not a ‘trial de novo’.

    2. LMAO. Like how immediately after giving legal advice, you say you aren’t giving legal advice.

      1. I stated what I WOULD DO – that is not legal advise.

  12. And this person that you claim is your “friend”, he won’t speak up for you, and tell the cops it was him, and not you? File a civil claim against him, and force him to appear in court. That is, if you’re even telling the truth.

    Somehow, I just don’t think you are.

    1. Nobody ever stated the person operating the motorcycle was a friend. There are a lot more details that were brought out in the courtroom. The individuals you are speaking of were from a motorcycle club, and this was two different clubs. This was not a friend.

  13. Since there is no dash cam video, and the officer said he didn’t verify the ID info, they can’t prove it was you. That should have been the end of it. I would contact a lawyer to see about filing a suit based on the officer perjery and

    1. Oops and witness intimidation. There should be a lawyer willing to bet on a payout if you win.

      1. It wasn’t about money, it was about holding the officer accountable for doing the right thing and telling the truth. He felt he was immune from having to tell the truth and be what police are supposed to be… and karma prevailed. The ticket was dismissed.

  14. Someone’s upset they got a ticket, go smoke some pot and take a nap, the seven’ eleven opens in 2 hours

    1. Your comment is both ridiculous and ignorant. The complainant doesn’t do drugs, is not an activist, and is an average citizen. Upset they got ticket? Wouldn’t you be upset if you weren’t even operating a vehicle and you received a ticket??

      1. Funny, you keep denying that you’re the complainant, but when the negative IQ guy says something about going and smoking dope, you immediately jump to what the complainant doesn’t do. You know, somebody might end up think you not only a liar, but a stupid liar at that. And if you did “win” the case, it might have as simple as the officer not showing up for court.

        1. Actually, I never confirmed nor denied if I was the complainant. In fact, I said multiple times to believe what you want. You are choosing to believe I am the complainant.

          The complainant won the case, and the officer did show up to court. It was proven that the officer was not calibrating his equipment. Not sure if that was in part of improper training, or ineptitude. Regardless, the officer also pointed out that the entire Granville PD doesn’t properly calibrate their equipment.

  15. Corporate police, sheriffs, armed revenue agents all commit fraud when demanding a legal name. losethename.com

  16. I also noticed a discrepancy in the listing of the officers name. The officer involved was Preston Lee, not Fox, as listed on here. I heard the same discrepancy in the court proceedings.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.