Hospitals & Asylums
Expungement Assignment Trial HA-1-4-07
Magistrate Amy Searcy
Jury Commissioners
Sealing of Records under Ohio RC § 2953.53
B. Filing for the Sealing of Records
C. Jury Trial on the Unauthorized
Commercial Use of Individual’s Persona
D. May Day Trials with Magistrate Searcy
E. Cincinnati Community Corrections
F. Demolishing Over the Rhine Development by 2020 and Offender Work Program
G. Evidence of Record to be Sealed
A -1 Park Signs 755-07-28
CMCN C/96/CRB/40518 filed 11/11/1996
expunged 5/1/07
A-2 Improper
Lights 503-1
CMCN C/01/TRD/8451 filed 3/12/2001 expunged 5/1/07
A-3 Vending Without a License 839-5
CMCN C/99/CRB/31438 7/27/1999
expunged 5/1/07
B-1 Vending Without a License 0505
ORCN C/98/CRB.40385 10/04/1998 expunged 5/1/07
B-2 Operating a Motor Vehicle Without a
License 4507-02
ORCN C/00/TRD/14329A 05/05/2000
B-3 Improper headlights/ needs a back
bumper under 4513-4
ORCN C/00/TRD/14329B 05/05/2000
H. Ballot
The issues for the jury commissioner in regards to the jury duty on the 23rd of April at 8:30 am
1. Can I be excused from sitting on the jury?
2. Does the jury believe that all charges enumerated in this expungement trial fail for want of an authorizing judge and statute of limitation?
3. Does the jury find that unauthorized commercial use of the individual’s persona occurred in regards to charge A-1, B-1 and B-2?
4. Does the jury agree to a damage settlement of $2,500 to $10,000?
A. The first expungement session is scheduled for 1 May day 2007 at 9 am, for
1. Park Signs 755-07-28 CMCN C/96/CRB/40518 filed 11/11/1996 innocent victim of unauthorized bio-terrorism
2. Improper Lights 503-1
CMCN C/01/TRD/8451 filed 3/12/2001 unauthorized commercial use of guilty
plea, should have been referred to auto part’s store
3. Vending Without a License 839-5 CMCN C/99/CRB/31438 7/27/1999 innocent owned a county vendor’s license and was not referred to the trustee
B. The second expungement session is on the same day at 1 pm, for
1. Vending Without a License 0505 ORCN C/98/CRB.40385 10/04/1998 innocent victim of unauthorized bio-terrorism
2. Operating a Motor Vehicle Without a License 4507-02 ORCN C/00/TRD/14329A 05/05/2000 innocent
3. Improper headlights/ needs a back bumper under 4513-4 ORCN C/00/TRD/14329B 05/05/2000 unauthorized commercial use of guilty plea, should have been referred to junkyard for new bumper
Jury Trial
1. Ohio Revised Code § 2313.01.
Commissioners of jurors
2. Ohio Revised Code § 163.10 Jury
selection; qualifications
3. Ohio Revised Code § 727.21 Jury
procedure
4. Ohio Revised Code § 727.19
claims for damages may be assessed by a jury
5. Ohio Revised code §2741.07 damages, jury trial, limitation on relief
6. Ohio Revised Code § 2741.02 Unauthorized use of a person’s persona
7. R. v. Spencer, SCC
11 2007: March 8
Articles for Trade
1. Sanders, Tony J. Attorney General Alberto
Gonzalez v. Justice Programs Director Domingo S. Hereiz HA-8-4-05
2. Sanders, Tony J. Chiquita Brands International v. District of Columbia Community Corrections. 24 paragraphs HA-23-3-07
3. Sanders, Tony J. Cincinnati War Crime Tribunal: Cincinnati Community Corrections v. Leis and Streicher. 22 entries HA-8-8-04
4. Sanders, Tony J. Demolishing Over the Rhine
Development by 202. 10 paragraphs HA-19-12-06
5. Sanders, Tony J. R v. Hamilton County Courthouse.7 pgs HA-11-1-04
6. Sanders, Tony J. 2 Nominated Prosecutors v. Joe Deters. 42 pgs HA-30-12-05
Justification for the Sealing of
Records
1. Art. 56(2) of the Constitution of the Kyrgyz Republic (2006) regarding the expungement of criminal records for people who may be elected a deputy of the Jogorku Kenesh
2. Ohio Revised Code 2953.31 Chapter 4507, 4510 [License offenses], 4511[Traffic Offenses], 4513 [Traffic Equipment - Loads], or 4549 [Motor Vehicle Crimes] of the Revised Code
3. Ohio Revised Code. Criminal Usury 2905.21(HA)
4. Ohio Revised Code. Quo warranto. New Elections 2733.16
5. Ohio Revised Code § 3.08
Procedure for removal of public officers
6. Ohio Revised Code §2953.32 Application for expungement
7. Ohio Revised Code § 2953.52
Sealing of official records
8. Ohio Revised Code § 2953.53
Order to seal records
9. Black’s Law Dictionary . 7th Ed. West Group. St. Paul Minn. 2000
Laws and Reports Dictating Community Based Corrections
1. Ohio Department of Corrections Annual Report on Commitments 2004 pp21
2. Ohio Department of Corrections. July 1, 2003 Institutional Census pp. 3
3. Ohio Revised Code. Adoption of Rules 5120.111
4. Ohio Revised Code Agreement regarding the Application for state financial assistance to
community-based corrections 5120.112
5. Ohio Revised Code. Application for State Assistance 2301.56
6. Ohio Revised Code. Arbitration agreement provisions.
7. Ohio Revised Code Minimum standards for jails; powers and duties of division of parole and community services under ORC5120.10
8. Ohio Revised Code. Non Residential Sanctions under 2929.17
9. Ohio Revised Code. Period of post-release control for certain offenders; sanctions; proceedings upon violation 2967.28
10. Ohio Revised Code. Residential Sanctions 2929.16
Work of Merit to Over the Rhine Development and Offender Work Program
1. City of Cincinnati. City Planning Commission. Meetings
2. City of Cincinnati. Financial Assistance Programs and Incentives. Economic Development
3. City of Cincinnati. Historic Conservation Board. Meetings
4. City of Cincinnati. Over the Rhine Community Final Plan. June 26, 2002
5. City of Cincinnati. Over the Rhine: An Update on the Implementation of the Comprehensive Plan. Summer 2002 – Summer 2006
6. iRhine. Historyof OTR
7. Over the Rhine Chamber of Commerce. OTR Profile
8. OTR Chamber of Commerce. Upcoming Chamber Events
9. OTR Community Council. Welcome
10. 3CDC. OTR Rap Session I. October 19, 2006
I, Anthony J. Sanders, moved to Cincinnati from California in 1984 when I was 10 years old. My parents had just graduated from college and found work and acceptance in a professional program at a time when Cincinnati was heralded as the most livable city. I graduated a year early in 1991. After traveling to Europe and the west coast I started international studies at the University of Cincinnati. I studied anthropology in Mexico for a year. Without the children around to keep them out of trouble my parents got divorced in 1994 and all funding for my education stopped. I worked a few jobs and then decided to finish my degree in International Affairs that I received in June of 2000.
Since graduating I worked for the US Census 2000 and then devoted myself full time to the study Hospitals & Asylums (HA), title 24 of the United States Code, publishing a quarterly e-journal beginning in 2001 and a website with 10 Chapter manuscript on December of 2004. The greatest accomplishments aside from the manuscript have been the $33 billion settlement of the Iraq Reconstruction Fund, $1 trillion international development decade bill and balancing of the federal budget. In November of 2005 the ABA CLE program invited me to apply to the Organization Regulatory of Continuing Legal Education (ORACLE). On this anniversary of the assassination of General Kabaka Oba there can be found sufficient grounds for the application of the principle of the independence of the judiciary whereas HA does all the research for Congress and the judiciary must not infringe or there are dire consequences for the unfed scholar and government.
Living in Cincinnati I have taken a passing interest in our community, mostly in defense of liberty. In 2004 and 2005 the local political situation went from bad to worse. To create a society where the scholar could be paid for their work, a plan for the civil reform of the beautiful courthouse that needs to ban criminal trials to the Justice Center and remove the judiciary from the palace and move in the civil and political agencies of was directed in Hamilton County Courthouse v. Queensgate Correctional Facility HA-11-1-04 however
former Commissioner Heimlich seems to have intercepted the information and retaliated in a pact to construct a new jail. The food stamps were poisoned in December 2004, January 2005. The Police Labor Management Agreement expired for 7 months since the National Convention of Veterans of Foreign Wars in August 2004 till March 2005 after the Cincinnati War Crime Tribunal: Cincinnati Community Corrections v. Leis and Streicher with 22 entries was sealed HA-8-8-04. It was not until December 2005
that the lead culprit, the Prosecutor, was given the rules to defend against 101 years in prison in 42 page Prosecutors v. Joe Deters HA-30-12-05.
This judicial shadow government is publicly failing to make the Agreement regarding the Application for state financial assistance to community-based corrections under ORC 5120.112 that needs to be enforced whereas Hamilton County has an unacceptably high
rate of detention over 800 per 100,000 more than the 250 legal limit or 550 state average or 740 national average and is cruel and incompetent. In Ohio only our national capitol city is in worse shape wherefore our local importer Chiquita Brands International v.
District of Columbia Community Corrections HA-23-3-07 has chipped in. It would seem that there can be no peace without filing
with the Governor under § 3.08 but an impartial judge may independently order the record sealed under § 2953.53 in hopes of eradicating bio-terrorism and on a positive note commission the prisoners to build their own community based corrections program and rehabilitate Over the Rhine and maybe compensate me for damages in a jury trial under §2741.07(B).
On April 24, 2007 when Ohio Governor Ted Strickland issued the following statement regarding the request for reprieve from James Filiaggi: “Earlier today, counsel for James Filiaggi asked me to grant Mr. Filiaggi a reprieve so that he could ‘pursue his efforts to participate in the litigation surrounding lethal injection in Ohio.’ After careful consideration, I have decided to deny this request for clemency.” Art. 3 Section 14 of the Ohio Constitution makes it clear that the Governor shall not “execute” the office except as provided or shall be ineligible to hold the office. Executing people is not provided for in the Constitution that vests in the Governor the responsibility to grant pardons and clemency in Section 11. This betrayal of the Governor gave the forces of prison construction that hold our town hostage an unfair advantage that they pressed to flaunt the decision of the Hamilton County voters in November who rejected a 0.25-point, 10-year sales tax increase to fund a new jail. Now two of the three Hamilton County commissioners are pushing a new plan, which would entail twice as much of a hike, and for 15 years. As the result of this two fold betrayal I impeached the Governor from my list, whereas I do not tolerate being “red” and have instead vested all of my faith in the General Assembly with the question of law, does the House have the authority to impeach Sheriffs, Prosecutors and Mayors (Police Chiefs) under Art. 2 Section 23 & 24 of the Ohio Constitution as conferred to the Governor under RC Section 3.08 or must they work together to prevent the corruption of the Governor? The hope is that parliamentary democracy will lead us to a higher and more peaceful stage of development.
B. Filing for the Sealing of Records
The statute authorizing expungement is Ohio RC §2953.32
that allows application to be made at the expiration of three years after
the offender's final discharge if convicted of a felony, or at the expiration of
one year after the offender's final discharge if convicted of a
misdemeanor. Upon the filing of an application under this section, the
court shall set a date for a hearing and shall notify the prosecutor for the
case of the hearing on the application. Under § 2953.52. Sealing
of official records after not guilty finding, dismissal of proceedings or no
bill (A) (1) any person,
who is found not guilty of an offense by a jury or a court or who is the
defendant named in a dismissed complaint, indictment, or information, may apply
to the court for an order to seal his official records in the case. The court shall (a) determine whether the
person was found not guilty in the case, or was dismissed. (b) determine
whether criminal proceedings are pending against the person. (c) If the
prosecutor has filed an objection in accordance with division (B)(1) of this
section, consider the reasons against granting the application specified by the
prosecutor in the objection (d) Weigh the interests of the person in having the
official records pertaining to the case sealed against the legitimate needs, if
any, of the government to maintain those records. The order to seal records is made under § 2953.53.
The idea to get my criminal records expunged was planted by a MHAP social worker who brought the new fraudulent old charges to light on 13 September 2006. The procedure for an expungement is to go to the Assignment Commissioner's office where you will be required to fill out and file the Probation Information Sheet and the appropriate application for expungement whereupon a hearing date will be set. If you are requesting the expungement of a non-conviction, no fee is required. Otherwise, you must pay a $50.00 fee to the Clerk of Courts. If you indicate to the clerk you cannot afford the $50.00 filing fee, you will be referred to fill out an Affidavit of Indigency. After doing some research on procedure and saving my records I went to two offices to collect the needed forms. The first try they wanted better information on the law in question. The second try took too long and the burglar we are trying to have expunged stole the forms before they could be delivered to the assignment commissioner. I was demoralized and it took a reading of Art. 56(2) of the Constitution of the Kyrgyz Republic (2006) that states, “No person with criminal record may be elected a deputy of the Jogorku Kenesh of the Kyrgyz Republic unless such record shall have been expunged and canceled in such manner as law may provide” to go to the Justice Center to get more forms. The third time was a charm and the forms were successfully filed by the Assignment Commissioner on the 26th of February.
By the 27th I had received several telemarketing callers, and bad bills solved by the publication of complaint citing criminal usury ORC 2905.21(HA) meaning they illegally charge for debts regardless of whether or not they are disputed or valid, were published on April Fool’s day. The Sheriff also renewed his illegal campaign to construct a new jail and City Council renewed their Mayor Juana law that was being used to fill up the jails. The problem that we are trying to redress in this expungement is that the leaders of the criminal justice system have established a system for spying on me and engage in illegal political activity when they intercept such information. This is not the first time that they have done this. Every action of the Sheriff for the construction of a new jail seems to result directly from the interception of information from me. The Council on the other hand tends to smoke Mayor Juana of their own accord but they never fail to poison me to prevent me from voicing an opinion. The murder of General Kabaka Oba attests to the corruption of the spying whereas the day before I had called the Mayor and dialed 6 for General to leave a message to administrate the $6.6 million Owensby settlement to all the victims of police bruatality. This litigious, even terrorist behavior, on the part of the armed forces seizing the government in a prison construction treason not averse to murder for hire needs to stop harassing me. While I am adamantly opposed to the construction of any new jails I can no longer serve as the voodoo doll they torture to inspire their non independent campaign.
According to the common law at the Clerk’s office to expunge your record a person must not have been charged for a year. The most recent non-conviction dates from 2001. Whereas Except as otherwise provided, the following do not constitute a previous or subsequent conviction, under Ohio Revised Code 2953.31 A conviction for a minor misdemeanor [up to a $150 fine only], for a violation of any section in Chapter 4507, 4510 [License offenses], 4511[Traffic Offenses], 4513 [Traffic Equipment - Loads], or 4549 [Motor Vehicle Crimes] of the Revised Code, or for a violation of a municipal ordinance that is substantially similar to any section in those chapters is not a previous or subsequent conviction. The circumstances surrounding the non-convictions in question are equal in weight to offenses in this paragraph and to avoid a disparity of sentence the records should all be sealed without further argument.
There are
four principles that arise in review of this case of merit to the civil
liberties of the general public. First,
under §2953.32 Application for expungement may be made at the expiration
of three years after the offender's final discharge if convicted of a felony,
or at the expiration of one year after the offender's final discharge if
convicted of a misdemeanor. In this
case 6 years have passed since the most recent record. Second, that records that are not
defended by a judge are not contested and must be considered non-convictions
for want of authorization. Third, that
police officers should direct motorists to the appropriate auto parts store or
junkyard without fining them unless they should be pulled over again for the
same traffic violation whereas this presents a financial double jeopardy. Fourth, that records with references to laws
that that mention the prosecutor or police chief by name, rather than
signature, tend to be false and are in fact recriminatory persecutions against
convictions of such named armed individuals.
Fifth, that non convictions and traffic violations, that are sent to the
state for points if they are of merit, should be automatically expunged from
the county record after a year and misdemeanor charges can be contested for
expungement for five years after which time they will be automatically expunged
and felonies of a lesser degree would become eligible for expungement
A notice was received to report to the Jury Commissioner on
April 23, 2007 at 8:30 am to serve for two weeks or until discharged. Under §
2313.01 of the Ohio Revised Code the Commissioners of jurors are appointed by a
judge and shall be officers of the courts of record in such county and
shall attend upon each term of such courts for which a jury is
drawn. Under § 163.10 Jury selection;
qualifications the assessment of compensation is made at regular or special
term of the court. Issues of
facts are triable by jury who are sworn under the voir dire, “to tell the
truth” R. v. Spencer, SCC
11 2007: March 8. Under § 727.21 jury procedure is for a
jurist to be sworn to inquire into and assess the actual damages in each case
separately, under such rules and instructions as are given it by the court.
When the jury cannot agree, it may be
discharged. Under §727.19 claims for
damages may be assessed by a jury and under §2741.07(A)(1)(b) damages
and other relief for unauthorized commercial use of individual’s persona, in
lieu of actual damages, statutory damages in the amount of at least two
thousand five hundred dollars and not more than ten thousand dollars, as
determined in the discretion of the trier of fact, the jury, taking into
account the willfulness of the violation, the harm to the persona in question. Although the jury assignment could be construed as
unauthorized commercial use of an individual’s persona it was in fact a fair
and interesting opportunity to be a respected participant in the judicial
process, not afforded to writers.
On the first day the Jury Commissioner Fritz Meyer gave an
introductory speech regarding the responsibilities of the jury to make
determinations of the facts during the voir dire part of legal
proceedings. Jurors are sent in groups
to attend trials when they are summoned.
In Hamilton County they have a program, patterned after a similar program
in Texas, to permit jurors to donate all or some of their $19 per diem fee to
either the administration of justice fund or the United Way. The first thing that occurs is that the
prosecutor and defense attorneys will select jurors who they feel will be
impartial by dismissing certain people.
Thereafter the jurors will sit on one side of the courtroom and listen
to the proceedings. If they have
questions the foreman may write the judge for clarification. Jurors frequently don’t get an opportunity to
attend a trial. The presence of juries
is however important because it tends to catalyze settlement. Many cases settle to avoid the embarrassment
of the jury trial sparing jurors the trouble of hearing the case. In other cases the length of the jury duty
for a single trial may extend to the full two weeks of jury duty. Many petit jurors who stay the full two
weeks don’t hear a single trial. Grand
jurors on the other hand who preside over the indictments are assured to hear
cases. I was dismissed on my second day
of jury duty along with numerous other people and received a check for $38 that
Friday.
May 1st 2007, was the date chosen for a trial at the Courthouse. This trial has been divided into two portions.
1. The first session is scheduled at 9 am. The first charge regards a fraud called Park Signs 755-07-28 C/96/CRB/40518 that is actually a drug surveillance/bio-terrorism burglary warrant that has been abused by the Cincinnati Police Chief in recrimination against my catching him in the impeachable act of permitting the Labor Management Agreement to expire in treason against the Convention of the Veteran’s of Foreign Wars in Cincinnati, in August of 2004, at great expense to the homicide rate as noted in the heading of the Cincinnati War Crime Tribunal HA-8-8-04 that is now closed whereas the Mayor’s pocket veto is now worth it weight in Mayor Juana. The second charge is Improper Lights 503-1 CMCN C/01/TRD/8451 occurred when I was mislead by a traffic cop offended with my broken taillight cover to pay a fine rather than direct me to the auto parts store where they would charge about the same $10 the anonymous lady judge permitted after I wrote a letter in my defense. The third charge is Vending Without a License in violation of 839-5 CMCN C/99/CRB/31438 although I still have the expired County license, unless the burglar steals it, a License Number Assigned by the County Auditor No. 31-26846, for 1999, in my records, the problem is the same in that if Corryville or Cincinnati wants their own vendor’s license the police should direct the vendor to spend their money on the fee rather than the fine. This injustice put me out of small business.
2. The second session is at 1 pm on May Day. The first charge is a vending permit violation under 0505 ORCN in C/98/CRB/40385 that seems to be false whereas it is so old and I have not recollection of more than one trial, I suspect this charge came from the arguments of the Cincinnati violation in the previous paragraph and had another, earlier date posted on it, it seems likely that this was put in the record to establish a reporting regime for the prosecutor to be informed of the local persecutions for his pleasure and permission in either retaliation or cause for Prosecutor v. Joe Deters HA-30-12-05. The second charge is C/00/TRD/14329 for operating a motor vehicle without a license in violation of 4507-02 ORCN for 0 points in part A, this charge is false, I had a license but the judge was trying to cover up the extortionate sum of $200 that should have gone to a good junkyard and wanted to justify it by giving me chance to take his license to practice law. Part B improper headlights/ needs a rear bumper under 4513-4 ORCN was also in error because the police officer should have directed me to the junkyard to buy a new bumper because I had just bought a used car and made a good faith effort to have working lights, the statute is also erroneous and should have recognized the fact it was the rear under 4513-5 ORCN. The Ohio Chief Justice recently took an interest in this municipal and township corruption. I no longer own a car and have no desire to get one.
The May day trial went well. Magistrate Amy Searcy skillfully dispatched more than 100 cases in this day that I got to opportunity to observe in its entirety whereas the expungement trial was split into a morning and afternoon session. The morning session went well. I was the second person called and the Magistrate was still fresh. I explained that, “I am a good person, all of the charges were minor misdemeanor in nature and the most recent charge dates from 2001. Furthermore two of the charges, the two oldest, are completely fraudulent biological experiment in torture and another is a very defensive judge trying to protect his stolen loot, wherefore I am in fact asking you to spare my life”. The Magistrate was sympathetic and agreed to expunge all the charges. She waived me over to the clerk where I signed a form for every charge that disclosed information to numerous state agencies. She insisted that I return for the afternoon trial. After taking a walk through downtown Cincinnati and returning to observe the trials of the day. They mostly involved traffic offenses that were frequently referred to a driving program staffed by former BMV employees named, “LIP”.
At 1 pm the second session began. The room was packed and I was the second to last person called. The Magistrate had issued dozens of capias warrants for people who didn’t show and the prosecutor decided to be obstructive so this session went less smoothly. Fortunately the Magistrate heard my plea to have the false vending without a license non conviction, from a time before I even had a business, expunged because it is such a bad conviction setting up a regime for the prosecutor to regulate the prosecutorial tactics of township merchants. However my complaints regarding the 2000 traffic offense fell upon deaf ears and they left me with a mostly harmless traffic conviction from 2000 to appeal. I fully intend to appeal this nonconviction because although the underlying fact regarding not having a satisfactory rear bumper is true the charges in the record are completely false because the judge was trying to justify charging the full $200 price of the bumper. The 00 point driving without a license non conviction is easily proven to be false because my current license expires on my birthday 2007 and driver’s licenses last for five years and the record claims that I had purchased a new license in 2000, when in fact I had a license at that time and renewed it in 2002. As for the bumper, it was a rear bumper, not a front bumper. The issue of fraud in the public records is however a very grievous issue. In this case I went through three used cars in quick succession that summer of 2000. At the time I didn’t correlate these mechanical failings with the traffic conviction but now it seems that the greedy judge hired someone to put sugar in my gas tank, and these charges need to be expunged by the General Assembly or Appeals Court in July when my work will be compatible with the Judiciary. The Magistrate was rewarded for her work with the offer of 1 CLE credit for a jury trial and 2 CLE credits for an opinion regarding 150 pgs. of judicial misconduct.
The state department of rehabilitation and correction is responsible for the accreditation of correctional programs who must meet minimal standards under § 9.06. Contracts for private operation and management of correctional facilities. In our community the problem is that Hamilton County is not obeying the directive to establish a community based corrections program to provide an alternative to incarceration while preventing recidivism and instilling respect for the dignity of the human being. The court of common pleas of any county that has a population of two hundred thousand or more may formulate a community-based correctional proposal that would provide a community-based correctional facility and program for the use of that court under ORC
2301.51. In determining whether to grant approval the court must formulate
more than one proposal, the director shall consider the rate at which the
county served by the court commits felony offenders to the state correctional
system. If a court formulates more than one proposal, each proposal shall be
for a separate community-based correctional facility and program. For each community-based correctional proposal
formulated under this division, the fact that the proposal has been formulated
and the fact of any subsequent establishment of a community-based correctional
facility and program pursuant to the proposal shall be entered upon the journal
of the court. A county's community-based correctional facilities and programs
shall be administered by a judicial corrections board. The presiding judge of
the court or, if the presiding judge is not a judge of the general division of
the court, the administrative judge of the general division shall designate the
members of the board, who shall be judges of the court. The total number of
members of the board shall not exceed eleven. The judge who is authorized to
designate the members of the board shall serve as chairperson of the
board.
To achieve international norms in regards
to the local prevalence of persecution the detainee population should not
exceed 250 prisoners per 100,000. The arbitrary
corruption limit is 400 prisoners per 100,000 without death penalty. The Ohio Department of Corrections Annual Report on
Commitments 2004 pp21 reports that Hamilton County made 2,553 commitments to
state penal institutions in 2004, 10.7% of total commitments to the
aforementioned institutions. The
July 1, 2003 Institutional Census pp. 3
reports that 4,571 offenders from Hamilton County were detained 10.08% of
45,363 state prisoners, Male 4,342
10.22% Female 229 7.93%. It has
also been estimated that there are 2,500 detainees held in the three adult
correctional institutions and substance abuse treatment hospitals (long term)
not to mention two facilities for juveniles.
This brings Hamilton County to an estimated adult detainee grand total
of 2,500 + 4,571 = 7,071 (est. 2003 & 4).
868 detainees per 100,000 0.86% of the 814,611 general population. The 11,435,798 general population of the
state of Ohio. Ohio detains only 565
per 100,000 would greatly benefit from reducing their total state and local
prison population to less than 28,589 from 63,444 (1999), 65%, and 75% of 46,806 in
state prison to 11,700.
In Hamilton County this new community
based corrections program will need to be large enough to accommodate the
reform of 5,000 criminal defendants and another 5,000 homeless to properly
redress the great dissolution of the American family while Hamilton County
adult. Hamilton County jail cells
should be limited to an estimated 1,000 for pre trial felony detainees and Ohio
prisoners from Hamilton County to another 1,000 reasonably sentenced felons. Full transition to these occupancy limits
should take no longer 10 years from 2006.
Progress of at least a 500 prisoner reduction in general prisoner
population should be declared every year and progress should be declared, at
least annually, and attorneys must regularly review habeas petitions in hopes
that one day there will be more legal professionals than prisoners in the State
of Ohio.
Community
based corrections under ORC 5120.111 establishes
that to form a community based corrections program the first thing to do is
adopt a set of rules making provisions for public participation to serve
as criteria for the operation of community-based correctional facilities and
programs and district community-based correctional facilities and programs. The program must
Adopt Rules to,
a. Prescribe the minimum educational and experience
requirements that must be satisfied by persons who staff and operate the
facilities and programs;
b. Govern the procedures for the submission of proposals for
the establishment of community-based correctional facilities and programs and
district community-based correctional facilities and programs to the division
of parole and community services.
c.
Prescribe forms that are to be used by judicial corrections boards of
community-based correctional facilities and programs and district
community-based correctional facilities and programs.
d.
Prescribe the standards of operation and the training and qualifications of
persons who staff and operate the facilities and programs and that must be
satisfied for the facilities and programs to be eligible for state financial
assistance. The standards prescribed shall include, but shall not be limited
to, the minimum requirements that each proposal submitted for approval to the
division of parole and community services.
In
making application for state financial assistance under ORC 2301.56
a judicial corrections board that proposes or establishes one or more
community-based correctional facilities and programs or district
community-based correctional facilities and programs may apply to the division
of parole and community services for state financial assistance for the cost of
renovation, maintenance, and operation of any of the facilities and programs.
If the judicial corrections board has proposed or established more than one
facility and program and if it desires state financial assistance for more than
one of the facilities and programs, the board shall submit a separate
application for each facility and program for which it desires the financial
assistance. If a person who has been convicted of or pleaded guilty to an
offense is confined in a community-based correctional facility or district
community-based correctional facility, at the time of reception and at other
times the person in charge of the operation of the facility determines to be
appropriate, the person in charge of the operation of the facility may cause
the convicted offender to be examined and tested for tuberculosis, HIV
infection, hepatitis, including but not limited to hepatitis A, B, and C, and
other contagious diseases. The person in charge of the operation of the
facility may cause a convicted offender in the facility who refuses to be
tested or treated for tuberculosis, HIV infection, hepatitis, including but not
limited to hepatitis A, B, and C, or another contagious disease to be tested
and treated involuntarily.
The Agreement regarding the Application
for state financial assistance to community-based corrections in ORC 5120.112.The division of parole and community
services shall accept applications for state financial assistance for the renovation,
maintenance, and operation of proposed and approved community-based
correctional facilities and programs and district community-based correctional
facilities and programs The division, upon receipt of an application for a
particular facility and program, shall determine whether the application is in
proper form, whether the applicant satisfies the standards of operation and
training and qualifications of personnel that are prescribed by the department
of rehabilitation and correction whether the applicant has established the
facility and program, and, if the applicant has not at that time established
the facility and program, whether the proposal of the applicant sufficiently
indicates that the standards will be satisfied upon the establishment of the
facility and program. If the division determines that the application is in
proper form and that the applicant has satisfied or will satisfy the standards
of the department, the division shall notify the applicant that it is qualified
to receive state financial assistance for the facility and program under this
section from moneys made available to the division for purposes of providing
assistance to community-based correctional facilities and programs and district
community-based correctional facilities and programs. The division shall
adopt a formula to determine the allocation of state financial assistance to
qualified applicants. The formula shall provide for funding that is based upon
a set fee to be paid to an applicant per person committed or referred in the
year of application. In no case shall the set fee be greater than the average
yearly cost of incarceration per inmate in all state correctional institutions.
No person shall be sentenced to or placed in a community-based correctional facility and program or to a district community-based correctional facility and program by a court pursuant to Residential Sanctions under ORC 2929.16 or Non Residential Sanctions under 2929.17 or by the parole board pursuant to a Period of post-release control for certain offenders; sanctions; proceedings upon violation ORC 2967.28, or otherwise committed or admitted to a facility and program of that type until after the proposal for the establishment of the facility and program has been approved by the division of parole and community services under Minimum standards for jails; powers and duties of division of parole and community services under ORC5120.10.
Over-The-Rhine is a community in the Cincinnati river
valley that contains the largest collection of 19th century Italianate
architecture still standing in the United States. The entire 360 acre district
of Over-the-Rhine has been recognized on the National Historic Register since
1983. This dilapidated district contrasts dramatically with the skyscrapers of
downtown Cincinnati from which it is divided only by E. Central Parkway. About 7,000 people currently reside in
Over-the-Rhine. At one time, nearly 50,000 people lived in OTR. In 1900, the population of OTR reached its
highest population of 44,475. Over the following years, the population slowly
declined. In 1950, there were 31,219
people living in the neighborhood; today there are less than 7,500 living in
approximately 5,300 housing units. OTR
is today a neighborhood of 96% renters with a current homeownership rate of less
than 5%, which is considerably lower than the approximately 38% homeownership
rate for the City of Cincinnati.
Stakeholders in the community agree
that this trend must be reversed and homeownership must be encouraged for
current and future residents. OTR has
over 500 empty buildings, 2500 empty units, and 700 vacant lots slated for
demolition but available for repopulation and serious renovation. Residential
development is a vital business in Over-the-Rhine. Buildings located in OTR’s
National Register District are eligible for Federal historic preservation tax
incentives that give money back to property owners who rehabilitate buildings
according to certain standards, fostering private-sector investment that has
been used to complete hundreds of projects.
The
neighborhood's population slowly declined from a high of 44,475 in 1900 to
27,577 by 1960. There was a slight rise
between 1940 and 1950 with the first influx of Appalachians into the community
however the downward population trend is consistent and continues. African-Americans today compromise the
majority of Over-the-Rhine's population. During the decade from 1960-1970 the
population of Over-the-Rhine dramatically declined by over 50 percent - to
15,025. Conversely, during the same period, the African-American population of
Over-the-Rhine more than doubled - from 2,720 in 1960 to 5,830 in 1970. The
Over-the-Rhine Community Council has also attempted to voice the concerns and
needs of the residents of Over-the-Rhine and to influence City policies and
programs that affect the area. Since 1970 the population of Over-the-Rhine and
the number of its African-American residents, however, have both declined; in
1990, the population of Over-the-Rhine stood at 9,572 (a sharp contrast to the
peak population of 44,475 in 1900), of which 6,835, or 71 percent, were
African-American.
Since September 2000, The City
Planning Department has been diligently meeting with community stakeholders to
develop the OTR Comprehensive Plan since September 2000 that was approved on
Friday, June 21, 2002, Cincinnati Planning Commission and on Wednesday, June
26, 2002. The Comprehensive plan is the
central document in the OTR development strategy. The overarching issues of the OTR neighborhood were determined to
be: (1) The need for quality housing options for all income levels. (2) How to introduce higher income residents
to the neighborhood without displacing or diminishing the quality of life of
current residents. (3) The need to stimulate business development and create job
opportunities for residents. (4) The need to eliminate crime, improve the
perception of safety in the neighborhood and improve community-police
relations. (5) How to encourage both old and new residents to respect each
other and form one diverse community. Litter, dilapidated buildings and other physical disorder
are common complaints in any neighborhood, but they seem to be more of a
challenge in OTR. The neighborhood’s appearance can be improved through the
dedication of residents, property owners and city departments. First and foremost, all residents of OTR
must take responsibility for one small piece of the neighborhood, whether it is
their block or just the area in front of their home. Responsibility does not
mean just cleaning up the area, although that is certainly part of it. Residents
must act territorially as well. This means asking people not to litter and
pointing out that someone else will have to clean it up if they do. Residents,
businesses and the Community Council can also take advantage of programs
offered through Keep Cincinnati Beautiful.
Non-profit organizations including ReSTOC, Over-the-Rhine
Housing Network and Mercy Franciscan Home Development, Inc. are engaged in
rehabilitating and/or building affordable housing units throughout the
neighborhood. Market-rate and private
developers such as Urban Sites Property Management, Middle Earth, and River
City Alpine Development Group have also undertaken various small and large
housing projects in OTR, and their interest appears to be growing. Based on current
figures new and rehabilitated units in the neighborhood are slowly approaching
the rent levels necessary to make projects financially viable. In fact, a few
recent developments have met or been able to exceed their projected rents.
However, despite a growing market and the availability of gap funding through
the Urban Living Loan Pool, Low-Income Housing Tax Credits, Federal Historic
Tax Credits and low-interest loans and grants through the City, residential
development in OTR is still far from an easy proposition. In 2000, the United States
Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) replaced their long-term
site-based Section 8 contracts (ranging from 20 to 30 years) for year-to-year
contracts.
Already, nearly 2,000 of the site-based
Section 8 unit contracts with HUD have expired and tenants have been given
portable vouchers. Within the next five
years, all of the long-term contracts with HUD in OTR will expire. Based on the
limited data available, about 60% of tenants whose landlords opted out of
Section 8 chose to stay in their current residence. The remaining 40% of
tenants elected to take their vouchers and move either to another neighborhood
in Cincinnati or to an entirely different locale, or did not qualify for a
voucher.
Crime is one of the central issues in the neighborhood, as
all of the strategies suggested for improving the neighborhood depend on OTR
being a safe neighborhood for everyone. Crime associated with drugs and drug
trafficking pervades the neighborhood and the nature of this activity has
become increasingly violent.
After the events of April 2001, the
relationship between the Cincinnati Police Department and the OTR neighborhood
has been somewhat tenuous, and sometimes hostile. Since the disturbances, there
have been numerous studies, debates and judgments brought forward to suggest
systemic changes to the manner in which the Police interact with the community
and the manner in which the community interacts with the Police. Most recently in 2006 the Sheriff agreed to
augment patrols in the area resulting in the arrest and detention of some 1,600
people, several hundred of who are being held in neighboring Butler County,
mostly on misdemeanor drug charges, on contravention to Ohio law. The problem seems to be that, as the result
of the return of the prosecutor, judgment, always in short supply, has become
totally and violently suppressed. To
properly redress the crime and drug problem OTR must invest in community drug
treatment and community corrections programs.
These offender-housing programs would utilize abandoned housing and
prisoner labor, the room board and minimum wage could be paid for half the
price of jail. Community corrections
and work programs would give these people, mostly wayward youths and substance
abusers, a sense of self worth if paid by an honest and non abusive
government. It is presumed that the
crime problem stems from the frustration in regards to the abandoned and
derelict houses that must be rehabilitated whereas the people come to
spiritually emulate the environment they live in. In dispatching police patrols the community must be careful to
select officers that are not prone to discrimination on the basis of race or
social class or those who use criminals and persecutors as soldiers and spies. The answer to the crime problem is
definitely community corrections and work programs rehabilitating both OTR and
its troubled people.
A majority of Over-the-Rhine’s current residents are poor and undereducated. In 1990 the median household income in Over-the-Rhine was approximately $5,000 per year, while the median household income for Cincinnati as a whole stood at $21,006. Various church and social agencies have expanded or started new programs that attempt to meet the needs of the area’s population. Numerous government, church and social agencies have established programs to raise the standards of living and education. Throughout the past decades, neighborhood residents also have worked to change the patterns of poverty and discrimination that have existed. The current residents have long sought to gain recognition for Appalachian and African-American culture, to improve education programs, and to prevent the closing of neighborhood schools. Due to a loss in the number of students, six schools have closed since 1975. Over-the-Rhine faces the same social problems that affect inner-city neighborhoods nationwide. Alcoholism, drug dependency and slavery, inadequate housing and homelessness are major concerns in the neighborhood that has such a large number of unoccupied units. Since the late 1980's owners of small businesses have shown a renewed interest in locating in Over-the-Rhine. The community's proximity to downtown and major transportation corridors and its lower property values and rents have attracted these investors, just as the same factors attracted Over-the-Rhine's original builders. Since the mid 1980's the Over-the-Rhine Chamber of Commerce has actively encouraged the maintenance and establishment of businesses in the area. Some shops provide for the community's residents and others attract customers from throughout the Cincinnati region. There are small groceries, specialty stores, restaurants, and light industrial shops. The Main Street area has experienced the greatest commercial redevelopment and offers a variety of shops, art galleries, restaurants and nightspots.
While most of the neighborhood is located in a very urban environment with little tree coverage, some vacant parcels on steep hillsides have extensive tree coverage. The OTR Community Council has promoted tree planting along Race and Elm Streets, making those streets particularly pleasant and visually appealing for residents and other users of those streets. Additional trees in other places throughout the neighborhood will enhance areas frequently used by pedestrians. Green space is also scattered throughout the neighborhood in the form of community gardens. These small gardens are surrounded by homes and businesses and are tended by local families, children and other residents. The plan is to establish well-maintained green space throughout the community and to begin planting trees immediately so that tree canopy is increased from 16% to 25% by 2020. Whereas the entire population of the county is declining it seems very unlikely that people will be found to repopulate the many abandoned buildings in OTR. Developers must come to value of green space as being more beautiful than vacant buildings and lots. Considering the downward demographic trends in OTR and the entire county the City must take a firmer hand demolishing the most dilapidated of buildings to produce green space. Although not the windfall for prospective developers green space would improve the public and mental health conditions of the OTR area and improve the property values of the standing structures. The City should be much more aggressive demolishing the most dilapidated of abandoned structures thereby limiting rehabilitation to the most likely projects. It is hoped that the City would organize for an estimated six demolition crews to demolish, clear the ground and reseed a condemned structure every month. To do this conscientiously the City would need to solicit for developers for a period of at least a year for every condemned building slated for demolition, before clearing the site.
At the same time that demolition efforts are strengthened investment in rehabilitation should be redoubled and a time limit of 2020 for the total rehabilitation of OTR should be set. Current community development efforts in OTR fail to set a timetable for the rehabilitation efforts and is therefore lacking the focus needed to get the job done. Therefore I would like to introduce the date of 2020 as the time when OTR shall be completely up to building code, with 2010 marking the beginning of a heavy phase of demolition that would be finished by 2015, when developers would begin to focus upon the small things that need to be done to bring all the remaining residential and commercial structures up to code, that the low income tenant just can’t afford. In the meantime political discussion regarding OTR needs to be redoubled. The primary focus should be on licensing and financing small business and resident community redevelopment efforts. A highly publicized political discussion should be sustained in order to attract small investors interested in rehabilitating one house in a street with other like-minded small business people so that they will be assured that the property value will increase when the entire street becomes attractive. The residents have the greatest interest in community redevelopment. The largely poor tenants are however thwarted from realizing their efforts to beautify the area they live in by their lack of funds and political corruption and discrimination. The government must redouble efforts to gainfully employ residents in community development efforts with rent credits, easy to participate in volunteer cleaning efforts that provide them with the tools to do jobs they can’t afford, networking between concerned residents voicing concern over dilapidated structures in their neighborhood and investors who would either rehabilitate it or demolish it, and a community corrections work program that would organize the minor offenders to rehabilitate OTR and themselves while being gainfully employed at minimum wage by the Department of Corrections to build their own half way house and on to do good work in the community that would pay for an enlightened justice system.
There
are numerous organizations involved in the development of OTR. To become involved one can either invest in
a project or work for someone who does.
There are however so many such projects that to come to grips with the
overall development scene one must seek the counsel of the several political
organization that hold regular and irregular meetings. Those interested in participating are
referred to the political organizations relevant to the development of OTR –
City Planning Commission, Historic Conservation Board, OTR Community Council,
OTR Chamber of Commerce, and 3CDC. The City Planning Commission usually meets the first and
third Friday of each month at 9:00 a.m. in the J. Martin Griesel Conference
Room, Centennial Plaza Two, 805 Central Avenue, Seventh Floor, Cincinnati, Ohio
45202. The Historic Conservation Board
usually meets every other Monday at 3:00 p.m. in the J. Martin Griesel Room,
Centennial Plaza Two, Seventh Floor, 805 Central Avenue, Cincinnati, Ohio
45202. The Over-the-Rhine Community Council is
the democratically elected, City recognized body which represents the
community. The Council holds monthly meetings open to everyone, usually
falling on the last Monday of the month, except for holidays, then it’s a week
early. Meetings start at 5 pm, run to about 7 pm, and are held at the
Over-the-Rhine Community Center, located at 1715 Republic Street, set back from
Race Street, opposite the Findlay Market south parking lot. The
OTR Chamber of Commerce is primarily held together by members only luncheons
the second Thursday of every month at the OTR Chamber Office, 222
E. 14th Street, Over-the-Rhine at noon but one must register early at 11:30
am. The Cincinnati Center City
Development Corporation (3CDC) was founded in response to the Comprehensive
Plan and has so far invested nearly $10 million in OTR and now controls 98
vacant buildings and 90 vacant parcels.
In October and November 2006 3CDC hosted three Rap Sessions regarding
OTR development, it is hoped that they will continue the sponsor public
dialogue on OTR as a means of increasing interest and hastening development
efforts. A sustained political effort
in community development is the only way that the job will get done.
G. Evidence of Record to be Sealed
|
Case Number: |
/96/CRB/40518 |
|
Common Pleas Case Number: |
|
|
Case Caption: |
STATE
OF OHIO vs. ANTHONY J SANDERS |
|
Judge: |
Unavailable |
|
Filed Date: |
11/11/1996 |
|
Case Type: |
- |
|
Race: |
WHITE |
|
Sex: |
M |
|
Age: |
32 |
|
Date of Birth: |
8/11/1974 |
|
Count : |
PARK
SIGNS 755-07-28 CMCN |
|
Disposition: |
11/12/1996
255 PAID OUT |
|
Case Number: |
/01/TRD/8451 |
|
Common Pleas Case Number: |
|
|
Case Caption: |
CITY
OF CINCINNATI vs. ANTHONY SANDERS |
|
Judge: |
Unavailable |
|
Filed Date: |
3/12/2001 |
|
Case Type: |
- |
|
Race: |
WHITE |
|
Sex: |
M |
|
Age: |
32 |
|
Date of Birth: |
8/11/1974 |
|
Bond Amount: |
$500
10% CASH |
|
Count : |
IMPROPER
LIGHTS 503-1 CMCN |
|
Disposition: |
04/11/2001
855 PAID OUT |
|
Case Number: |
/99/CRB/31438 |
|
Common Pleas Case Number: |
|
|
Case Caption: |
STATE
OF OHIO vs. ANTHONY J SANDERS |
|
Judge: |
Unavailable |
|
Filed Date: |
7/27/1999 |
|
Case Type: |
- |
|
Race: |
WHITE |
|
Sex: |
M |
|
Age: |
32 |
|
Date of Birth: |
8/11/1974 |
|
Count : |
VENDING
W-O LICENSE 839-5 CMCN |
|
Disposition: |
08/04/1999
314 CONV BY NOLO CONTNDR |
|
Case Number: |
C/98/CRB/40385 |
|
Common Pleas Case Number: |
|
|
Case Caption: |
STATE
OF OHIO vs. ANTHONY J SANDERS |
|
Judge: |
Unavailable |
|
Filed Date: |
10/2/1998 |
|
Case Type: |
- |
|
Race: |
WHITE |
|
Sex: |
M |
|
Age: |
32 |
|
Date of Birth: |
8/11/1974 |
|
Count : |
0505-94
ORCN |
|
Disposition: |
10/04/1998
255 PAID OUT |
|
Case Number: |
C/00/TRD/14329 |
|
Common Pleas Case Number: |
|
|
Case Caption: |
STATE
OF OHIO vs. ANTHONY J SANDERS |
|
Judge: |
Unavailable |
|
Filed Date: |
3/18/2000
2:11:00 AM |
|
Case Type: |
- |
|
Race: |
WHITE |
|
Sex: |
M |
|
Age: |
32 |
|
Date of Birth: |
8/11/1974 |
|
Count A: |
OPER
MOTOR VEHICLE W-O LIC 4507-02 ORCN |
|
Disposition: |
05/05/2000
855 PAID OUT |
|
Count B: |
HEADLIGHTS
4513-4 ORCN |
|
Disposition: |
05/05/2000
855 PAID OUT |
The following issues of fact are prepared for the yes, no or no bill vote of jurists.
1. Has it been more
than a year since the individual has been charged with any offense?
2. Are the non-convictions
in the public record authorized by a judge to permit contestation?
3. All charges were
common law non convictions, does the jury agree all charges are minor
misdemeanor in nature?
4. Charge A-1 Park Signs C/96/CRB/40518 11/11/96 is referenced to the nonexistent section 755-07-28 CMCN in a chapter on police drug surveillance of the chief of police and I have no recollection of this trial and presume that is a bio-terrorism dating from 2005 or 2006 does the jury believe this is an unauthorized commercial use of individual’s persona, ie fraud, intended to launch bioterrorist attacks against me?
5. Charge A-3 Vending Without a License 839-5 CMCN C/99/CRB/31438 7/27/1999 occurred when I had
Hamilton County Vendor’s license no. 31-268463 and was asked to pay a local fee
by the police across the street from the Clifton business center where they
claimed I needed to purchase a license but it was the court who fined me does
the jury believe me to be innocent?
6. Charge B-1 Vending without a license C/98/CRB.40385 10/04/1998 under 0505 ORCN, I have not recollection of the trial, it seems to have been a law scavenged out of the case above when the clerk’s records were decommissioned in 2004-2005, this law sets up an elaborate regime for people with vendor’s licenses to report their prosecutorial tactics to the prosecutor in what is probably the initial regular administration of bio-terrorism that began in 2005, does the jury believe this to be an unauthorized commercial use of individual’s persona, to launch a community persecution against me?
7. Charge B-2 Operating a Motor Vehicle Without a License 4507-02 ORCN C/00/TRD/14329A 05/05/2000 is false whereas the judge needed to explain why he charged the full $200 price of the bumper for charge B-3 Improper headlights/ needs a back bumper under 4513-4 ORCN C/00/TRD/14329B 05/05/2000, does the jury believe that Charge B-2 Operating a Motor Vehicle without a license is false taking into consideration that the record says I bought a new license in 2000 but my license is set to expire this 2007?
8. Actual damages from the persecution were accrued that can be counted in the loss of 28 months of food stamp benefits valued at $4,200 and a loss of faith in the local government of much greater spiritual value because they can no longer be served with my work that I hope to trade to the County Commissioners for a reasonable fee of not more than $10,000 from this jury trial so that I could afford to move and maybe leave this community where I am so unwelcome that I am being formally persecuted in the county record, does the jury believe that I am entitled to compensation for the unauthorized commercial use of my record?
9. In review of this outdated record and allegation of putting in false old records instead of deleting newer old records, does the jury feel that Hamilton County should begin to automatically expunge misdemeanors after 5 year without interfering with the right of a person to petition for expungement after 1 year?
10. I have prepared a plan for the establishment of a community corrections program to relieve the unacceptably high detainee concentration of 800 per 100,000 although the legal limit is closer to 250 per 100,000 and the city and county need to be held responsible, does the jury wish to commission such a program?
11. The prosecutor, sheriff and police chief have
so far failed to make the Agreement
regarding the Application for state financial assistance to community-based
corrections 5120.112 and have engaged in misconduct regarding
judicial independence in regards to infringing, retaliation and treason upon
this legislative author, does the jury wish to convict these armed officers of
this failing for dismissal by the Governor under §
3.08 and documents that can be signed or drafted from Cincinnati War
Crime Tribunal HA-8-8-04?
12. The Cincinnati
marijuana ordinance has great influence upon the Hamilton County criminal
justice system does the jury feel that it should be struck down?
13. An estimated two
thousand people have been arrested from Over the Rhine in Operation Vortex,
more than 20% of the population, does the jury wish to commission a plan for an
offender work program to rehabilitate OTR to build their own community
corrections shelters for a respectable minimum wage and public finance, in
order to redress the community in a socially responsible fashion?
14. Should the judiciary be removed from the beautiful palace being used as a courthouse to do the county administration justice?
Assignment Commissioner’s office
Hamilton County Justice Center
Room 117 1000 Sycamore St.
Cincinnati, OH 45202
513-946-6250
Hamilton County Courthouse
1000 Main St., Rm. 121
Cincinnati, Ohio 45202
Office of the Public Defender
WM. Howard Taft Center
Second Fl. 230 E. Ninth St
(513)946-3700
Jury Commissioners Office
Hamilton County Courthouse
1000 Main Street Room 455
Cincinnati, Ohio 45202
513-946-5879
Hamilton County Clerk
Hamilton County Justice Center
1000 Sycamore St, room 112
Cincinnati, OH 45202
513-946-6010
Anthony J. Sanders
451 Ludlow Ave. #212
Clifton, Ohio 45220
513-281-3029