Councilman Protests Judge's Handling Of Graffiti Suspects

  This is a smart move on the part of Cimperman.  City residents are sick of suburban punks getting away with their childish antics and Joe knows it.  But, by now, we know that, for Joe, it's all for show, and the PD will go along with it.  Meanwhile, Cimperman's likely opponent, Brian Cummins, gets a backhanded slap in the PD today with his "how dare you dare the Diocese" for his landmarking of church interior/exteriors.  I hope that Brian wins this Jesuit Death Race 2010.  He has a big trump card in his pocket.  Get enough disgruntled suburban/urban Catholics to support his efforts to save inner city churches and he can take down the Judas move Cimperman made when he sold out on St. Andrews.   Remember folks, Cimperman could have landmarked St. Andrews, but he did not.  Meanwhile, Brian is going to have to get out from under his own sell-out mess...the NRP subsidized senior housing project, now slated to be in Cimperman's new ward.  How convenient.  Brian, remember, Kucinich will help you against Cimperman, because in NEO, grudges never die.  Unload NRP, now.

I'd like Cimperman to elaborate on the apparent title of the protest he just staged at the Justice Center: "Judge Eileen A. Gallagher Does Not Care About Cleveland".

Does he have proof? Is that really true? Does the PD support this position, as indicated by their prominent promotion of Cimperman's claim in their paper, despite there being nothing newsworthy about any aspect of this protest...

I can see reelection time coming... PD editors praising Cimperman rally and trashing judge over HEK.

What a miscarriage of justice, by our pandering newpaper ediors, and chief jester.

How many people was Cimperman able to rally for this rally... the photos indicate a half-dozen? Let's see the whole roll... show us the public outrage. There was none.

I suspect there were more important people at this rally to fight lead poisoning, at the same site, less than a year ago... which I don't recall was attended by Cimperman.

So a judge decides someone commited a minor crime rather than a major crime and Cleveland City Councilman Cimperman stages a smear campaign against the judge, with friends holding signs reading "Judge Eileen A. Gallagher Does Not Care About Cleveland"... denigrating a fine sculpture in the process (on cover of the Plain Dealer metro section of the print edition, there is a photo of the Segal sculpture in front of the Justice Center with a protest sign placed in the seated figure's lap...).

People here have indicated they don't think Cimperman is doing a good job as Councilman, but I don't recall anyone claiming "Councilman Cimperman Does Not Care About Cleveland" just because he used his political power to destroy Frank Giglio's house and life, for example.

People say "Councilman Cimperman Does Not Care About Frank Giglio"...

or "Councilman Cimperman Does Not Care About Lead Poisoning"...

or "Councilman Cimperman Does Not Care About The Poor".

We all assume he cares about "Cleveland"... his Cleveland, but still Cleveland. 

I assume Judge Gallagher cares about Cleveland as well.

Disrupt IT

i was wondering about this, did they prove each element of the felony they charged?

i mean regardless of our feelings, i would be more upset by a judge allowing prosecution based on emotion. if their actions did not amount to a felony crime it would be inappropriate for Gallagher to make a finding of guilt just because she was really pissed off by what they did.

i think we need to be careful of charging a felony - its a pretty serious level of crime - lets not blur the lines.

anyone have information on this?

Cimperman is running for office. He probably doesn't even know which office at this point. He's always running for office.

He's a politician.

However, his complaint is legit.

I don't understand the kind of defense I read here in RealNEO for this kind of misuse of

free expression. Especially when the perpetrators go into low income areas already hit

by every kind of destructive force and add their bit.

Roldo,

I don't condone painting on someones house or garage.   But I also don't condone the Goodyear Blimp. The first is a violation of someone's private property, and the second is a violation of public trust property. 

Shepard Fairy is trying to navigate and illuminate a path through this issue. 

The discussion here on Realneo is an attempt - by several of us - to illustrate that the general public is willing to abandon a very legitimate claim to  public trust property of theirs, while having a total nit fit about their garage - which in my mind is a much less significant issue. 

And then there is the discussion of graffiti on highway infrastructure, public property,  and the like...and the quality and message of the graffiti. 

If the message was an urgent political message, is that ok?   Is it ok in a revolution? or only in a Revolution?

best, jeffb

Roldo, I don't defend taggers.  Henry, doesn't defend taggers.  Others at REALNEO do.  I have no idea, why they do.

As a politician, Cimperman has his strengths.  He knows his constituents and he communicates with them.  I don't abide his
closed door deals with the "business" community, and the Diocese,  and his cheerleading on behalf of developers like Wolstein, but he can rally folks to an important civil cause.  And, I am also fed up by politicians that milk a megaphone for their own advancement...Cimperman is one of those politicians. I shouldn't mix my p's and q's here, but he can't continue to play both sides of the aisle and hold his head in this community.  He can't pretend to love us and screw us over at the same time with the kind of behavior he exhibited towards Frank Giglio.

Today, I will applaud Cimperman for defending the rights of citizens in this community and I hope it was not just another political photo-op for him.  We have to live with the damages wrought by these "kids."  Do I feel less for them, because they are confused, bored, directionless kids from the suburbs or nearby?  No.  These kids need guidance.  They are destructive and angry and they are easily attracted to the underworld of crime.  That crime starts with tagging, which leads to drug dealing, which leads to guns and leads to death.

 i'm not defending tagging - don't really like it really. what i'm saying is maybe they were overzealous in their prosecution. maybe they should have gone for multiple misdemeanors? i don't know, there wasn't much mention of this in the press.

if its not a felony to tag, then it doesn't make sense to scream at the judge for finding them not guilty of a felony. 

it makes sense to look at the legislature. you can't legislate from the bench (separation of powers and all that).

 i'm stuck here in this hot lab bored out of my fricking mind waiting for images to scan.....