Why a Good Man Goes to Court: Boot-lickers shape a story
The Cincinnati Enquirer has taken an interest in the Lang case involving the law suit pressed by three West Chester police officers against the current president of the township trustees. The Enquirer has cut together a video clip seen at the link below illuminating some key statements by Lang which the officers are building their case on. If the entire video is watched, which I have put in its entirety on another article, it is clear that Lang wasn’t picking a fight with the West Chester police, but was trying to explain why he—as a trustee had agreed to an out-of-court settlement to keep the victim of police brutality from going to court against the police department. I know the context of the video because it’s my video. I shot it, I uploaded it, and I own it. Lang didn’t ask me to, he didn’t “publish” any such statements intended for public consumption beyond the explanation to a group of fiscally concerned Tea Party members who wanted to understand why he spent tax money for an obvious out-of-court settlement.
http://www.cincinnati.com/videos/news/politics/2014/03/22/6737579/
The Enquirer has a history of doing hit pieces. It was Lang’s predecessor Cathy Stoker who worked up a hit piece against me along with some other Lakota levy supporters because they were upset that I was involved in a charity event that undermined their community altruism—power. So they used segments of my statements made on these pages to try to paint me as a sexist—because they essentially didn’t have a way to answer my arguments against them. They played politics—which is the same as saying that they “cheated.” This is often the strategy used when an establishment is challenged by new ideals—they dig in and use “politics” to protect themselves from change.
George Lang represents real change in the role of community politics. This makes many people very upset—particularly government type workers. In that same video highlighted by the Enquirer Lang also told the audience not to vote for any future tax increases for the police department because as he said, they are already well paid and make too much money. And he’s right. They are.
Government workers from police to school teachers and the reporters who are aligned with them for feel good “community” stories don’t want people like Lang in charge. They want chaos, and open purse strings that will demand tax increases every time those government workers want a pay raise. If there was anything that Lang said negative in that video it wasn’t the very fair statements made about the case involving the beating—because he didn’t say anything that could even remotely be considered as “slander.” He didn’t even mention the officers’ names. They did that to themselves when they filed a law suit against Lang. Surely their lawyers told them that Lang would bring forward the officers who told him about the bragging that was going on at police headquarters and that they’d be put under oath at the trial–surely they aren’t that stupid—then again, perhaps they are. Or that the doctors who worked on the victim wouldn’t provide testimony as to the contents of the beating to validate the truth of Lang’s statements about why the township had to settle out of court. The police obviously didn’t think this case through. Instead, they have already slandered George Lang by attacking him. They have already provided false statements to the public. Lang had nothing to do with “publishing” the video. I did. And he never said a word about the case to me at any point in time under any circumstance which of course I will provide testimony to—under oath.
The real problem the police have with that video based on my personal experience with all the parties involved is that Lang came out against a future police levy. They won’t admit to that under any circumstance, but deep within their secrets of their minds, they know it’s the truth. That is their real issue. Lang told the audience not to give the township any more money because the trustees would just find a way to spend it. Does that sound like a bad, malicious, slanderer? Lang also said that the police were heroes and that he was glad that he didn’t have to do their job? That comment didn’t show up in any of these Enquirer clips and articles. None of those statements made it into the story at any point—because they are all on the same side. When the video is played in court, the judge, the jury and the audience will also see that Lang said all those things—that were far from disgraceful, slanderous, or mean-spirited.
Oddly enough this story broke only one week after Lang’s trustees stood with the residents of West Chester in preventing a Kroger Marketplace from going in to a controversial plot of land where the developer was seeking a zoning change. It might be a coincidence, but the timing is awfully similar to my own situation where I had quite a sensation with my charity announcement to help Lakota students, then the very next week my name was plastered on every radio station in the Cincinnati area in a negative way—the context removed. Developers give quite a lot of money to sheriff campaigns, so favors against political rivals are not out of the question. In this case the issue is irrelevant, because I know the meaning of the video— I shot it, I published it, and I was there to confirm the context. It only took two years for the police to become upset about it, and it just so happened that this story hit the Enquirer a week after the Kroger Marketplace deal fell through………….I’m sure it’s all just a coincidence…………….by the way………I have some swamp land to sell in Alaska.
The case against Lang is not one in pursuit of justice or fairness. It is to pound him into political submission by the political currents of West Chester in my opinion. Behind the three police officers involved in this law suit is a labor union aligned with all government labor unions driven by radicalism to their own selfish desires. What they are really mad at is that Lang is against tax increases for West Chester—and this law suit is designed to rough him up—based on my history with such things and the characters involved. Lang said nothing slanderous about the three officers—he stuck strictly to the facts which are how it should be done. He has a responsibility to the community which he took seriously. The police may not have liked it, but they shouldn’t have screwed up on that late night beating of a helpless drunk—just because they had the “law” at their back.
At the beginning of that same video Lang also mentions the things I have said on this site—and that oddly enough didn’t make it into the Enquirer either. A lot of people read my blog, probably a lot more than who read the Enquirer every day, or the Today’s Pulse, by Cox Publishing. I can understand that they’d be jealous, or upset. But they’d find they’d have more readers if they’d stop pandering to the villains and stand behind the righteous—like Lang. People like good people, and Lang is a good person. They don’t like suck asses and boot lickers—and too often the Cincinnati Enquirer asks their reporters to be both and the casualty is not George Lang, or myself—it’s the readership of the newspaper. Lang isn’t the only politician who reads my work, and they are reading me because they can’t get the facts anywhere else. And it is also why my video is at the center of this case because the Enquirer was too busy kissing ass to film it on their own. And they don’t even have the guts or courtesy to acknowledge that their source material came from Overmanwarrior’s Wisdom.
But they had no problem taking credit.
Rich Hoffman www.OVERMANWARRIOR.com
