United States News
See other United States News Articles
Title: Good Cop Charges Police Chief with a Felony and Is Immediately Fired
Source:
Blacklisted News/FTP
URL Source: https://www.blacklistednews.com/art ... felony-and-is-immediately.html
Published: Jul 26, 2018
Author: Matt Agorist
Post Date: 2018-07-26 09:02:56 by Deckard
Keywords: None
Views: 1671
Comments: 7
New Holland, OH — New Holland Police Sergeant Brad Mick was doing his job of trying to fight crime in the city of New Holland, and for his dedication to duty, he was fired. This good cop was relieved from duty because the alleged criminals he went after were part of the thin blue line. Mick dared to call out corruption in his own department by executing a search warrant and filing charges against the mayor, the current police chief, and the former police chief. He was then immediately fired — but not before he tried to seek protection from termination. According to the Fayette Advocate, Mick filed what is commonly known as a “whistleblower protection affidavit” under Ohio law with Fiscal Officer Mavis Yourchuck a week ago. On Monday night, he filed the same document with the mayor, police chief, and council vice president, Gregg Shaw. “Pursuant to the Whistleblower Protection Act of Ohio and Revised Code 4113.52, let this serve as my notification that I believe felonies are being committed by New Holland Mayor Clair ‘Butch’ Betzko and New Holland Village Marshal David Conrad,” read the affidavit. “Pursuant to R.C. 4113.52(A)(1)(a), this is my complaint. The village and its administration are hereby put on notice that you are barred from seeking retaliatory measures against me, including but not limited to: ● Removing or suspending the employee from employment; After Mick discovered forgery crimes within the department, he obtained a search warrant and carried it out on Saturday. With the help of the Ohio Highway Patrol and the Pickaway County Sheriff’s office, Mick raided the department. “For an officer to investigate his own boss when he has probable cause and evidence of a crime being committed is perhaps the most commendable act of all,” said criminal defense attorney Brad Jones of Mick’s bravery to cross the thin blue line. “This officer clearly takes his oath of office seriously and any law enforcement officer who cannot respect that should not have a badge or gun.” “On July 18, 2018, it was brought to my attention that a paper FAXED to the Ohio Attorney General’s office by the Village of New Holland might be a forged document,” Mick wrote on the request for a warrant. “The form was dated for July 16, 2018 as being signed by Jason Lawless, however, Jason Lawless was believed to be in the state of Alabama on that date and not present in the State of Ohio.” After Mick compared the form to a dozen other documents, he determined that the signature was forged. During the execution of the search warrant, the mayor showed up and attempted to go inside the department. However, police had set up a perimeter and refused to allow him in. After finding evidence of the felony forgery during the raid, Mick served a felony summons to Mayor Clair “Butch” Betzko and Police Chief David Conrad during a town hall meeting on Monday. As Mick handed Conrad his summons, he was immediately given a termination letter — with no cited cause for his firing. Mick then reportedly walked into the lobby and said, “Just so you know, people, if you do the right thing around here, you get terminated.” The crowd immediately began calling for the termination of the mayor. Because Mick filed this affidavit before he was fired, according to the Spitz law firm, he has grounds for a lawsuit and could be reinstated before the end of the week. “If they have followed the proper protocols and successfully navigated the legal channels, whistleblowers in Ohio have legal recourse for retaliatory actions taken against them as a result of their whistleblowing,” says Cincinnati attorney Robert A. Klingler. However, this has yet to happen. Mick, like many other good cops before him is experiencing the wrath of the thin blue line. Those good cops who have the courage to cross it often end up punished, fired, or worse. Just this week, TFTP reported on the case of Former DeLand Police Officer Allison Bainbridge who reported a fellow cop for threatening and abusing an innocent citizen. She had the abuse recorded on her body camera yet she was fired and not the offending cop.
● Withholding from the employee salary increases or employee benefits to which the employee is otherwise entitled;
● Transferring or reassigning the employee;
● Denying the employee a promotion that otherwise would have been received;
● Reducing the employee in pay or position.” 
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: Gatlin (#0)
Another good cop screwed for crossing the thin blue line and going after criminal cops - Parsons will no doubt call his firing justified.
Admit that is true! Yet, you can categorically proclaim Mick as a “Good Cop” based on a SINGLE action published in a SINGLE article. I will wait for more information before arriving at any conclusions….AND YOU SHOULD HAVE ALSO. People who make very quick decisions may be more likely to make a BAD decision based on POOR judgment, according to research out of BI Norwegian Business School.
You're not gonna pout are you, and post another of your "I'm afraid of libertarians" screeds?
After Mick compared the form to a dozen other documents, he determined that the signature was forged. Is this Charles "Brad" Mick fellow is a handwriting expert? Who is this William "Jason" Miller fellow? Former police chief. What was the probable cause for the issuance of a search warrant? "There "might be a forged document" and "Jason Lawless was believed to be in the state of Alabama on that date and not present in the State of Ohio?" - - - - - - - - - - http://www.sciotopost.com/former-new-holland-sergeant-brad-mick-makes-statement-on-his-termination/ By Jeremy Newman [Images of Affidavit, search warrant, etc.] - - - - - - - - - - https://www.10tv.com/article/new-holland-controversy-officials-charged-officer-fired - - - - - - - - - - https://www.recordherald.com/news/28904/council-fires-new-holland-officer Sgt. Mick claims termination is ‘retaliation’ for charging village officials By Megan Neary - mneary@aimmediamidwest.com New Holland Police Department Sgt. Charles “Brad” Mick was fired Monday evening at a special village council meeting after he had filed fifth-degree felony charges against the village’s mayor, Clair “Butch” Betzko, and interim police chief, David Conrad. Conrad has been charged with forgery, and Betzko has been charged with complicity to commit forgery. The forgery charges surround an incident that allegedly occurred “on or about July 16” according to a law enforcement probable cause affidavit. The affidavit claims that Conrad forged the signature of former police chief William “Jason” Lawless on a form that would remove him as police chief and appoint him as a village police officer. Also according to the affidavit, Betzko “falsely acknowledge [sic] and signed that Lawless was present and took the oath of office.” Mick filed the charges in Circleville Municipal Court on Friday. He also executed a search warrant Saturday night at the New Holland Village Office, 10 E. Front St. In a video of Monday evening’s Village of New Holland council meeting in which Mick was fired, he said, “Folks, just to let you know, when you do the right thing around here you get terminated for it.” Someone in the crowd could be heard shouting, “That’s retaliation.” When asked why he was terminated, Mick replied, “For filing charges on the mayor and the chief of police.” The video was shared to Facebook by the Scioto Post. The Record-Herald did not receive public notification of the special council meeting. In a written statement, Mick said, “As I wrote in my affidavits, there is probable cause of criminal violations and I carried out my oath of office by investigating them. As a result, evidence was obtained that supported the complaint and charges were filed. I started this process and I will see it through to the end. My termination does not undo the criminal acts by others and it will not erase evidence or dismiss the charges. While it is disheartening and a violation of the law to be retaliated against and terminated for obeying the oath of office, it does not stop here. This is about the law and the law will be carried out. What is right is right, and what is wrong is wrong. It doesn’t matter who you are. No title or office should shield you with immunity.” John Gonzales, village solicitor to New Holland, wrote in a statement that “the decision to terminate Sgt Mick’s employment with the Village was made prior to the recent events. He did not receive formal notice of termination until last (Monday) night because he avoided communication with the Village. Sgt. Mick has abused his position as a Village police officer. He appears to be pursuing a personal agenda with these baseless charges. He has violated the established chain of command and conducted an improper search and destruction of Village property. Had he, in good faith, believed that crimes were committed by Village employees, he should have taken his evidence to the County Prosecutor, Ohio Attorney General or County Sheriff, who are empowered to properly investigate and, where appropriate, bring charges. When asked for clarification as to why Mick was fired if it was not related to “recent events,” Gonzales replied, in an email, “because we are anticipating a civil lawsuit for wrongful termination, I am not in a position to answer any questions regarding his termination.” The Record-Herald visited the New Holland Village Office on Tuesday. Mayor Betzko and Chief Conrad were not in the building and, at press time, they had not returned requests for comment. Fiscal officer Mavis Yourchuck said she had “no comment.”
Once conclusion that can be logically reached is that his guy was in the process of being terminated and he flipped (or maybe he had already lipped out) and went on a vendetta mission? The guy sounds like a nut….well, he actually sounds like a libertarian. If I can’t have it my way, I am going to try and spoil it for everyone else. Uh, Deckard….you say you “like” good cops and you called Mick a “good cop”. Now give us your definition of a “good cop”….please. Thanks nolu for posting this information. There is always a story behind the story….a contention I have always made. I need to put this to you politely and diplomatically, so I will….Deckard, you really have a fucked up mind.
I have provided the text of some of the filings. Full image copies are at the links. http://www.sciotopost.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/IMG_3843.jpg at 10 E. Front Street, New Holland. Pickaway County, Ohio, did knowingly make or cause to be made a telecommunication. or permit a telecommunication to be made from a telecommunications device under the person's control, with purpose to abuse, threaten, or harass another person, to wit: permitted Brenda Carroll-Landman to use defendant's office phone to commit telecommunications harassment, in violation of R.C. 2917.21(8)(1), a misdemeanor of the first degree. in violation of R.C. 2917.21(B)(1) /s/ Sgt. B. Mick Sworn to, and subscribed in my presence on this 20th day of July 2018. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - http://www.sciotopost.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/IMG_3843.jpg Law Enforcement Probable Cause Affidavit State of Ohio Court Case: The Affiant, Sergeant Charles B. Mick, being first sworn, says there is probable cause to believe defendant William Jason Lawless, committed an offense based on the summary of facts below: Brenda Carroll-Landman had asked to meet with me while I was at the police department on July 10, 2018. Brenda was read her Miranda rights and signed a constitutional rights waiver. I interviewed Brenda about an unrelated matter until I was interrupted and told to cease by New Holland Mayor Clair "Butch" Betzko. On July 11, 2018, Brenda continued to contact me via social media and told me that she harassed a private citizen, for which she is facing charges for telecommunications harassment. Brenda told me that on or about February 23. 2018 the defendant was the Police Chief of New Holland. On said date, Brenda said she was at the village police department at 10 E. Front Street when she called journalist Derek Myers at 12:30 p.m. from public service 740-313-2302 and called Myers a "fucking fag" from inside the police chief's office. At 1:02 p.m., Brenda said she was inside Lawless's office and used his desk phone 740-495-5097 to call Myers and further harass him, which Lawless told her she could do. Brenda told me that Lawless provided her with Myers's phone number and sat idly by while Brenda made the first call and then permitted her to use his office phone a half an hour later to further the harassment. The defendant failed to stop Brenda and allowed her to use his phone. After the harassment continued in his presence and eventually ended, the defendant failed to arrest Brenda and the victim Derek Myers has to pursue a private criminal complaint through the law director's office. She was charged with telecommunications harassment. Ok. Brenda asked to meet Brad Mick while he was at the police department on July 10, 2018. She was read her Miranda rights and signed a constitutional rights waiver. He then proceeded to interview her about an unrelated matter. Uh huh. On July 11, 2018 she contacted Brad Mick on social media and related her criminal misconduct of February 23, 2018, for which she was being prosecuted. She claimed that former-Chief Lawless permitted her to use the phone in his office to commit this crime and accuses former-Chief, then-Chief, Lawless of failing to arrest Brenda when she was done criminally harassing Derek Myers via the phone. Perhaps, just maybe, Brenda had something to do with Chief Lawless becoming former-chief Lawless, and there is some sort of relationship between Brad and Brenda. The good cop, the bad cop, the former Chief, and Brenda — what a shit show. http://www.sciotopost.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/IMG_3841.jpg Law Enforcement Probable Cause Affidavit State of Ohio Court Case#: The Affiant, Sergeant Charles B. Mick, being first sworn, says there is probable cause to believe defendant Chief David Conrad, committed an offense based on the summary of facts below: On or about July 16th, 2018 New Holland Police Chief David Conrad forged the signature of former Police Chief William "Jason" Lawless on a form known as SF400 (notice of peace officer appointment) and submitted that form to the Ohio Attorney General's office. The form was to remove Lawless as chief of police, who had resigned, and appointing him as a village police officer. On the form, Conrad forged Lawless's signature under "oath of office" while Mayor Clair "Butch" Betzko falsely acknowledge and signed that Lawless was present and took the oath of office. A witness came forward under the state's "whistleblower protection act" and stated that Conrad told them he needed to go back to Lawless's former office and find something with his name on it so he could duplicate it. Comparing the signature on the SF 400 to 14 signatures that Jason Lawless had actually signed and based on the witness statement and Mayor Betzko's accompanied signature It is apparent this is an act of forgery in which he was complicit. Oh my, whoever could have been the witness who came forward under the state's "whistleblower protection act." From the thread article: But what if they are a pair of screwups who failed to follow the proper protocols and took their crap to the wrong place? https://www.recordherald.com/news/28904/council-fires-new-holland-officer [...] John Gonzales, village solicitor to New Holland, wrote in a statement that “the decision to terminate Sgt. Mick’s employment with the Village was made prior to the recent events. He did not receive formal notice of termination until last (Monday) night because he avoided communication with the Village. Sgt. Mick has abused his position as a Village police officer. He appears to be pursuing a personal agenda with these baseless charges. He has violated the established chain of command and conducted an improper search and destruction of Village property. Had he, in good faith, believed that crimes were committed by Village employees, he should have taken his evidence to the County Prosecutor, Ohio Attorney General or County Sheriff, who are empowered to properly investigate and, where appropriate, bring charges. What a shit show indeed. It appears Little Brad may have been doing the thinking and did not think to research where to file his complaint. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - http://codes.ohio.gov/orc/4113.52 (A) (1) (a) If an employee becomes aware in the course of the employee's employment of a violation of any state or federal statute or any ordinance or regulation of a political subdivision that the employee's employer has authority to correct, and the employee reasonably believes that the violation is a criminal offense that is likely to cause an imminent risk of physical harm to persons or a hazard to public health or safety, a felony, or an improper solicitation for a contribution, the employee orally shall notify the employee's supervisor or other responsible officer of the employee's employer of the violation and subsequently shall file with that supervisor or officer a written report that provides sufficient detail to identify and describe the violation. If the employer does not correct the violation or make a reasonable and good faith effort to correct the violation within twenty-four hours after the oral notification or the receipt of the report, whichever is earlier, the employee may file a written report that provides sufficient detail to identify and describe the violation with the prosecuting authority of the county or municipal corporation where the violation occurred, with a peace officer, with the inspector general if the violation is within the inspector general's jurisdiction, or with any other appropriate public official or agency that has regulatory authority over the employer and the industry, trade, or business in which the employer is engaged. (b) If an employee makes a report under division (A)(1)(a) of this section, the employer, within twenty-four hours after the oral notification was made or the report was received or by the close of business on the next regular business day following the day on which the oral notification was made or the report was received, whichever is later, shall notify the employee, in writing, of any effort of the employer to correct the alleged violation or hazard or of the absence of the alleged violation or hazard. (2) If an employee becomes aware in the course of the employee's employment of a violation of chapter 3704., 3734., 6109., or 6111, of the Revised Code that is a criminal offense, the employee directly may notify, either orally or in writing, any appropriate public official or agency that has regulatory authority over the employer and the industry, trade, or business in which the employer is engaged. (3) If an employee becomes aware in the course of the employee's employment of a violation by a fellow employee of any state or federal statute, any ordinance or regulation of a political subdivision, or any work rule or company policy of the employee's employer and the employee reasonably believes that the violation is a criminal offense that is likely to cause an imminent risk of physical harm to persons or a hazard to public health or safety, a felony, or an improper solicitation for a contribution, the employee orally shall notify the employee's supervisor or other responsible officer of the employee's employer of the violation and subsequently shall file with that supervisor or officer a written report that provides sufficient detail to identify and describe the violation. (B) Except as otherwise provided in division (C) of this section, no employer shall take any disciplinary or retaliatory action against an employee for making any report authorized by division (A)(1) or (2) of this section, or as a result of the employee's having made any inquiry or taken any other action to ensure the accuracy of any information reported under either such division. No employer shall take any disciplinary or retaliatory action against an employee for making any report authorized by division (A)(3) of this section if the employee made a reasonable and good faith effort to determine the accuracy of any information so reported, or as a result of the employee's having made any inquiry or taken any other action to ensure the accuracy of any information reported under that division. For purposes of this division, disciplinary or retaliatory action by the employer includes, without limitation, doing any of the following: (1) Removing or suspending the employee from employment; (2) Withholding from the employee salary increases or employee benefits to which the employee is otherwise entitled; (3) Transferring or reassigning the employee; (4) Denying the employee a promotion that otherwise would have been received; (5) Reducing the employee in pay or position. (C) An employee shall make a reasonable and good faith effort to determine the accuracy of any information reported under division (A)(1) or (2) of this section. If the employee who makes a report under either division fails to make such an effort, the employee may be subject to disciplinary action by the employee's employer, including suspension or removal, for reporting information without a reasonable basis to do so under division (A)(1) or (2) of this section. (D) If an employer takes any disciplinary or retaliatory action against an employee as a result of the employee's having filed a report under division (A) of this section, the employee may bring a civil action for appropriate injunctive relief or for the remedies set forth in division (E) of this section, or both, within one hundred eighty days after the date the disciplinary or retaliatory action was taken, in a court of common pleas in accordance with the Rules of Civil Procedure. A civil action under this division is not available to an employee as a remedy for any disciplinary or retaliatory action taken by an appointing authority against the employee as a result of the employee's having filed a report under division (A) of section 124.341 of the Revised Code. (E) The court, in rendering a judgment for the employee in an action brought pursuant to division (D) of this section, may order, as it determines appropriate, reinstatement of the employee to the same position that the employee held at the time of the disciplinary or retaliatory action and at the same site of employment or to a comparable position at that site, the payment of back wages, full reinstatement of fringe benefits and seniority rights, or any combination of these remedies. The court also may award the prevailing party all or a portion of the costs of litigation and, if the employee who brought the action prevails in the action, may award the prevailing employee reasonable attorney's fees, witness fees, and fees for experts who testify at trial, in an amount the court determines appropriate. If the court determines that an employer deliberately has violated division (B) of this section, the court, in making an award of back pay, may include interest at the rate specified in section 1343.03 of the Revised Code. (F) Any report filed with the inspector general under this section shall be filed as a complaint in accordance with section 121.46 of the Revised Code. (G) As used in this section: (1) "Contribution" has the same meaning as in section 3517.01 of the Revised Code. (2) "Improper solicitation for a contribution" means a solicitation for a contribution that satisfies all of the following: (a) The solicitation violates division (B), (C), or (D) of section 3517.092 of the Revised Code; (b) The solicitation is made in person by a public official or by an employee who has a supervisory role within the public office; (c) The public official or employee knowingly made the solicitation, and the solicitation violates division (B), (C), or (D) of section 3517.092 of the Revised Code; (d) The employee reporting the solicitation is an employee of the same public office as the public official or the employee with the supervisory role who is making the solicitation. Effective Date: 07-06-2001; 2006 HB3 05-02-2006.
“For an officer to investigate his own boss when he has probable cause and evidence of a crime being committed is perhaps the most commendable act of all,” said criminal defense attorney Brad Jones of Mick’s bravery to cross the thin blue line. “This officer clearly takes his oath of office seriously and any law enforcement officer who cannot respect that should not have a badge or gun.”
“Truth is treason in the empire of lies.” - Ron Paul
Trump: My People Should ‘Sit Up in Attention’ Like Kim Jong-un’s Staff.
#2. To: Deckard (#1)
Another good cop [Police Sergeant Brad Mick].
You know absolutely nothing about Police Srgeant Brad Mick except what you read about his actions in the article.
#3. To: Gatlin (#2)
“Truth is treason in the empire of lies.” - Ron Paul
Trump: My People Should ‘Sit Up in Attention’ Like Kim Jong-un’s Staff.
#4. To: Deckard (#3)
You know, I think I could like you and maybe we could become friends….if you only had a cuckin’ brain.
#5. To: Deckard, Gatlin (#0)
“On July 18, 2018, it was brought to my attention that a paper FAXED to the Ohio Attorney General’s office by the Village of New Holland might be a forged document,” Mick wrote on the request for a warrant. “The form was dated for July 16, 2018 as being signed by Jason Lawless, however, Jason Lawless was believed to be in the state of Alabama on that date and not present in the State of Ohio.”
Former New Holland Sergeant Brad Mick Makes Statement on His Termination
07/24/2018 Mick charged New Holland Interim Police Chief David Conrad with forgery, Mayor Butch Betzko with complicity to forgery, and former Chief Jason Lawless with dereliction of duty and telecommunications harassment.
Council fires New Holland officer
#6. To: Deckard, nolu chan (#5)
John Gonzales, village solicitor to New Holland, wrote in a statement that “the decision to terminate Sgt Mick’s employment with the Village was made prior to the recent events. He did not receive formal notice of termination until last (Monday) night because he avoided communication with the Village. Sgt. Mick has abused his position as a Village police officer. He appears to be pursuing a personal agenda with these baseless charges. He has violated the established chain of command and conducted an improper search and destruction of Village property. Had he, in good faith, believed that crimes were committed by Village employees, he should have taken his evidence to the County Prosecutor, Ohio Attorney General or County Sheriff, who are empowered to properly investigate and, where appropriate, bring charges.
Are you reading this, Deckard? Are you understanding this, Deckard?
#7. To: Gatlin (#6)
The undersigned Complainant, being duly sworn, slates that on or about FEBRUARY 23, 2018, WILLIAM "JASON" LAWLESS
2018 JUL 20 PM 2:11
2018 JUL 20 PM 2:16
“If they have followed the proper protocols and successfully navigated the legal channels, whistleblowers in Ohio have legal recourse for retaliatory actions taken against them as a result of their whistleblowing,” says Cincinnati attorney Robert A. Klingler.
Council fires New Holland officer
4113.52 Reporting violation of law by employer or fellow employee.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]