More than 20 Occupy Cincinnati protesters were arrested last night just hours before a morning parade was scheduled to celebrate the life of local billionaire Carl Lindner, who died on Monday. The Enquirer's homepage this morning includes a lengthy account of the arrests and reactions by Occupy, along with a live feed covering the parade, which was to begin at Great American Ball Park and end near a Kenwood restaurant where Lindner enjoyed eating.
Lindner supporters gathered at various locations along the parade route, including dozens of Cincinnati Police standing outside District 1 around 9 a.m. Students stood outside a school on 9th Street singing songs about going to heaven. (Occupy Cincinnati representatives have not acknowledged the correlation.)
Three of the four Republican members of Cincinnati City Council introduced a motion today calling for the city manager to immediately begin enforcing all city laws at Piatt Park, which eventually might result in the arrest of Occupy Cincinnati protestors.
Councilman Wayne Lippert introduced the motion this afternoon. Councilwomen Leslie Ghiz and Amy Murray signed the document, giving it their support. It would require at least two more signatures to have enough backing to be approved.
Approximately 50 Occupy Cincinnati protesters attended yesterday's City Council meeting to testify against Piatt Park's 10 p.m. closing time. Negotiations between the city and protesters is ongoing, according to reports, but no agreement was made yesterday after protesters turned down an offer of a new place to stay overnight and the city declined to let the group stay in the park under new restrictions.
Councilman Chris Bortz and Councilwoman Leslie Ghiz, both of whom have connections to property along the park, have brought up the possibility that if protesters aren't removed that someday the city will have to let the Ku Klux Klan camp out. Ghiz yesterday was criticized by protesters for posting on Facebook the private information of two people who wrote emails criticizing her (more on that here). CityBeat reflected on the situation again here.
We reported here yesterday that City Councilwoman Leslie Ghiz posted personal information on Facebook about two citizens who had emailed criticism about her pressuring of City Manager Milton Dohoney to remove the Occupy Cincinnati protesters. The news quickly spread on Twitter (which you can follow in our live aggregator below), and Ghiz removed the posts shortly thereafter.
The incident might not seem like the hugest deal — largely a petty socio-political discussion on a conservative's personal Facebook page among a bunch of likeminded people. But the publication of the home and email address of a citizen who opposes an elected official crosses a major ethical line.
We purposely didn't publish screen shots of the posts due to the private information involved. It would have been relevant only in demonstrating the pettiness with which Ghiz offered the critics' opinions to her collection of angry friends. “These are some of the lovely emails my campaign has been getting because I believe the law should be applied evenly and equally to everyone,” the first introduction reads. How does she expect people to react to such sarcasm? “Oh dear, Leslie, I also care not for such a movement and its collection of anarchic rogues. Let me set down my tea cup and console you."
Leslie Ghiz has angered some Occupy Cincinnati supporters by posting on her Facebook page the home and email address of one individual and the email address of another who criticized her for pressuring City Manager Milton Dohoney to kick the protesters out of the park. The two individuals wrote to Ghiz's campaign, according to Ghiz.
A federal judge has ordered police to stop ticketing Occupy Cincinnati protesters after the group filed a lawsuit against the city for banning people from Piatt Park when it closes. The city has already ticketed protesters approximately $25,000.
J. Robert Linneman, one of the attorneys who filed the suit, according to Bloomberg Businessweek:
"This case is not about the whether you agree with the political views of Occupy Cincinnati or Occupy Wall Street; it's about the right of the people to assemble in a public park and to engage in protected speech."
Uh oh, the owners of buildings adjacent to Piatt Park are angry and they're not going to take it anymore. They reportedly met with city officials yesterday led by Arn Bortz, former mayor and Towne Properties partner/Councilman Chris Bortz's super-rich uncle, to ask that they be removed. Bortz also accused protesters of defecating in the park and abusing people walking through, both well-known annoyances for neo-fascists.
Here's how The Enquirer describes an Ohio Supreme Court decision allowing Democrats to challenge a ridiculous Republican attempt to unfairly redraw Congressional districts: “Court ruling throws 2012 elections into chaos.” Here's the same report by WLWT, minus the drama: “Ohio Supreme Court Allows Redistricting Challenge.”
Cincinnati police didn't give out any citations in Piatt Park last night, saving the people in the Justice Center a lot of paperwork and wasted time. Some occupiers and local homeless activists have planned a march on Saturday to highlight causes of homelessness.
New York officials delayed a monthly park cleaning that would have meant having to clean lots of protesters too. The movement is spreading to Canada, where occupy protests are scheduled to begin this weekend in Toronto, Montreal, Ottawa, Calgary, Vancouver and Halifax.
Covington City Commissioner Steve Frank is getting a little bit of local coverage after posting the following to his Facebook account on Sunday: “Turn out the lights on the Occupiers, I feel like going Taliban on them!!!” Frank yesterday explained in a grammatically challenged response the wildly circular logic behind his statement: “The taliban, through there (sic) eyes are resisting occupation. I'm resisting the Occupiers. I figured that the irony would be lost on most of the dummies in Occupation Nation that oppose the war because they see us as occupiers. I happen to oppose the war too but for highly different grounds.”