Pair who protested TownHall restaurant hit with felony assault charge after worker said she lost hearing from megaphones—Cleveland.com
“Being subject to a baseless felony prosecution is one of the worst things that can happen to a person at the hands of their government,” Pattakos said. “Even if the defendants are acquitted, substantial damage is done. And here the damage is exponential due to the chilling message sent to anyone intending to exercise fundamental protest rights in the area.”
. . .
Pattakos attached to the email a court brief he filed in the protection order case that summarized sworn testimony from several people, including Boyd. The brief said that Boyd provided no medical evidence, other than her statement to her doctor that she had trouble hearing out of one ear, and testified that she did not wear a hearing aid or take any medication to treat her hearing loss. The filing also noted that no other protesters standing near Douglas and Yahner suffered any hearing damage.
“While we have had our differences, I believe you are a reasonable man and I have every reason to believe that your office has been badly misled as to the basis for this indictment,” Pattakos wrote. “I accordingly expect that if I am missing something here, your office will advise me immediately. Otherwise, we will commence our public outreach campaign next week and will expect press and civil-rights advocates nationwide to flock to Cleveland in support of these kids and the most fundamental constitutional rights.”
O’Malley told cleveland.com on Thursday that he took Pattakos’ email as “a threat or an attempt to extort” him into dismissing the indictment.
“If Mr. Pattakos feels an indictment is improper, he needs to learn how to professionally represent his client in a manner that is consistent with the ethical principles required to practice law in the State of Ohio,” O’Malley said.
O’Malley said his office is currently evaluating Pattakos’ comments “to determine if it has violated the rules of conduct for attorneys in the state of Ohio.”
Pattakos responded that O’Malley’s prosecution of his clients is “an outrageous attack on the First Amendment that setsan extremely dangerous precedent” and said it is “simply a fact” that he will have to answer for that to the public.
“The fact that he considers my saying so to be some kind of an unlawful ‘threat’ speaks additional volumes of hisapparent disrespect for free speech,” Pattakos said. “Again I urge him to read the law, review the facts, and reconsiderthis disastrous waste of public resources his office has embarked on.”