The cover photo from the October Special Edition 2012. Protected by the First Amendment.
A resolution to the case we’ve been fighting since a filing last year has been submitted, this by Lawrence County resident Judge Robert Hopkins, and occurring on deadline of this current issue.
Those who have been following the storyline know that for the past three years, members of our family, pissed off that their untoward behaviors were referenced in columns almost five years ago, spent more than a year (beginning in March 2011) seeking an order of protection over the most lame of reasons (the one we use as an example frequently is the fact that we wouldn’t let them borrow a garden tiller in 2009…go figure). In reality, their efforts were spurred on by Olney attorney (former state’s attorney now defense attorney) Chuck Roberts, who was using the distraction of an OP filed by the now-late Dan Howser in order to cost us on several different fronts when we were succeeding at gaining guardianship of our granddaughter…the other side of that battle using Roberts as their attorney, conveniently enough, but which was a dead giveaway when it came to understanding why it was all happening.
The elder Howsers succeeded in getting the OP in April 2012, but the basis was extremely unclear…as there hadn’t been any physical contact with that side (which they didn’t initiate, anyway, by yelling at us, flipping us the bird, coming onto our property and taking items off it, etc) for years and therefore, there was no “harassment, threats, intimidation or interference with personal liberty”…all the elements required to establish cause for an OP. In fact, WE had endured “harassment, threats AND intimidation” from those people…but hadn’t filed an OP, because we’re adults and it takes a little more than threat of an ass-beating to bother us. But apparently, not the elder Howsers. So they were able to establish this tenuous OP against Jack, which we could only figure was based on nothing but opinion pieces published YEARS before, which veracity remained unquestioned…and which, therefore, didn’t fall within the realm of an OP.
And when we pushed to try to have certain aspects of it clarified, Chuck Roberts—NOT the people involved in the OP—pushed back, by once again “back-dating” the nonsense claims, this time, of violation of the OP. And the only thing that could possibly mean, therefore, was that of course the OP was issued on the basis that material appearing in our print publication, which is against our First Amendment rights…and which opened the door wide for us to prove that’s what Chuck was doing to us all along.
And Hopkins helped us prove that, just a couple of weeks ago after months of deliberation. Here now is the article appearing on the front page of this issue, in a landmark case that set precedent for any fool who might try to file an OP or a Stalking/No-Contact Order against a newspaper or other media outlet, as no one had tried it before and there was no existing case law. We set it; and now, it’s been established: “First Amendment upheld in publisher’s OP case” tells it all.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
RICHLAND CO.—The judge appointed to handle the case of frivolous complaints against Disclosure Publisher Jack Howser has entered a decision in Disclosure’s favor after more than two months of deliberation.
Lawrence County resident Judge Robert Hopkins, assigned to the case after removal of Associate Judge Kim Harrell in 2012 and then White County Judge Thomas Sutton’s retirement later that year, submitted his ruling on February 13, 2014, after a hearing on November 26, 2013, during which testimony was given only by Howser in a complaint that a questionably-issued Order of Protection had been violated.
The violation complaint was filed by opposing attorney, former Richland County prosecutor Chuck Roberts, who has had heartburn against Disclosure since losing a case to them pro se in 2009.
Roberts also happens to be the attorney for the other side of the Howsers’ grandchild, whom the Howsers were granted guardianship of in November 2010, yet another source of contention for Roberts, as the Howsers continued to prevail in court on that issue as well.
The OP violation allegation came about likely at the behest of Roberts, who has been acting in the capacity of attorney since 2009 for members of the Howser family seeking to cause problems for Disclosure, this after years of being Jack and Angela Howsers land trust attorney as well as trustee. Since Disclosure’s coverage of events in the 24-county region is truthful and based on documents, information from official sources, or eyewitness reports, anyone with issues to be raised with the paper would by law have to go about making complaints in the established tort venue of libel. However, family members somehow hit upon the notion (likely fomented by Roberts and his skewed way of thinking) that because they are related to the publisher, they could claim “harassment” via Orders of Protection, thus stopping the paper from writing about them in coverage of any court matters—or even work-related matters, as many of them are employed by a taxpayer-supported entity—without having to file a libel case, which they would ultimately not only lose, but probably have thrown out of court on a first motion by the defense.
That didn’t stop Roberts, however: as reported last year (August-September 2013 edition), he filed a violation of an existing OP that was only granted after years of hoop-jumping and gyration.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
To read the rest of the article, click this link to get started on your online membership to the e-Edition…or, for the next two weeks, you’ll be able to pick up a physical copy of the February/March 2014 edition of Disclosure where this appears as one of five front-page articles; check this vendor list for the location nearest you!
Remember: Those who do wrong hate us because we tell the truth about them. The ones who bitch about our news organization are either in the paper in some capacity of wrongdoing, or are hoping we don’t find out about their heretofore undiscovered wrongdoing. Your ongoing support of Disclosure enables us to fight the wrongdoers as well as those who have something to hide and want to keep it covered up, along with morons like Chuck Roberts, who just “doesn’t think papers like ours should be published,” as he’s expressed many times in court. Please consider an online membership. For only $5.99 a month, your support gets you every article in the print version delivered right to your computer/mobile device (and, now, many that don’t make it to print!), as well as funds the fight we have against those who seek to shut us down, something this nation as a whole is getting closer to every day. When the real media can’t tell you what’s happening in your area, you will be at the mercy of the media who is spoon-fed only what the public officials want you to know. And if we’re shut down, guaranteed: YOU’RE NEXT. So help us keep fighting the fight. Pick up a copy, or subscribe today!