We’re investigators, not reporters. We write reports, not news stories. We write findings, not blog posts.
Yet, we are writers and we have a site to keep active. We wrote a local news story, someone even pointed out it was our first story since 2016. Nah, we spend our time investigating and when the time is right, we might publish the story here.
Our hope is another news outlet will do the reporting. But sometimes, we may have to publish ourselves so the documents are available on the world wide web. Publish so the story is on the world wide web.
Our local news story got some hits. We even deleted the local news story because our group does not desire publicity. Alas, we put it back up. Because the story was news. And the local news story published here drove home a valuable point about print media in the area. The Courier created a reality not in existence with the docket posting. We felt an obligation, as journalists, to share more information because court procedure in the local area is an aspect of a larger investigation.
We came across the “man” some months ago who spun quite a yard about his pro se representation in civil protection order proceedings here in town and how he was up against the “best attorney” in town with a politically recognized name and “won” the case.
We kept in touch with him, he kept us up to date from a story angle of the problem with civil protection orders. A big problem is when the woman being granted a Temporary Civil Protection Order ex-parte (and the court never says no) is lying. The bigger story is about this problem and a big part of the story is how the court will handle a woman perjuring herself to get a temporary CPO.
CPO laws were designed to protect women. In this case, in our opinion, the “woman” from the story used CPO laws as a weapon. To get back at a guy she didn’t like. One of the things we’ll investigate is how many times a “woman” is granted a temporary sixty day civil protection order, ex-parte, meaning she got to tell whatever story she wanted, unchecked, end up as a civil protection order on the “woman” who filed. In our basic investigation, it’s a fraction of a percentage. Usually, the woman has all kinds of evidence … texts, emails, social media, “drive-bys” … the woman has usually asked the “man” to stop numerous times and he won’t. The woman utilizes CPO laws as a last resort. The “woman” from our local news story, in our opinion, utilized CPO Laws as a first strike weapon.
The “man” and the “woman” in the local news story aren’t even a couple. They’re neighbors. “The man” has lived at this condo five plus years, the “woman” has lived there 14 months. We’ve interviewed the “man”, his neighbors, his friends. we have reviewed court filings in these matters.
A lot of CPO Law comes down to who you believe. In this case, we’re going to believe the “man”, a former highly decorated military officer trying to live a quiet peaceful retired life in Flag City USA.
And oh, by the way, we have some questions about Country Club Condominium I. Who, what, where, when, and other journalistic questions regarding Flag City’s first established home owner’s association.
Our money is on the complex at the corner of Queenswood and Londonderry and City of Findlay, or Hancock County turned those apartments into condominiums.
But, Country Club Condominium I is a story for another day.
This blog post is opinion of the author.