CLEVELAND, OH – The first indication of the Tamia Chapman cover-up Cleveland police are engaged in is how the Caller on the incident report is identified in the “nature of the call” as a police, EMS, fire, auxiliary in trouble. That’s the first lie. The caller was employed officially for the Target Corporation at the time of the 9-1-1 call.
Specifically, the Caller was seated in his Chevy Silverado in the parking lot working as a Target security and safety worker with shopkeeper rights to observe and report crimes to municipal police. The 9-1-1 call he made to Cleveland’s police department was that he’d observed a woman being robbed on Target’s property and had followed the vehicle off the private property in his personal vehicle.
So at the moment Target’s employee left the corporation’s property to follow the stolen vehicle, instead of tending to its customer, he created a “liability” for his deep pockets corporate employer. It’s here where inside understanding of police management and the relationships between individual police employees and their private security company employers is critical.
Under R.C. 2935.04 the General Assembly of Ohio gave “anyone” the authority to arrest when they see felony like the one Target’s security worker witnessed. It’s this state’s “citizen’s arrest” law.
“When a felony has been committed, or there is reasonable ground to believe that a felony has been committed, any person without a warrant may arrest another whom he has reasonable cause to believe is guilty of the offense, and detain him until a warrant can be obtained.”
On Target’s property the security worker even had the authority to detain the males involved in the robbery he was witnessing. He also told dispatchers he didn’t see a gun or know if they had weapons.
So at the time he was calling in the robbery the Target security and safety employee had a right to protect the woman on private property and cause an arrest of the armed males. From her “legal” perspective Target’s safety worker didn’t lift a finger to protect or comfort his employer’s customer. He drove off. One of the males was only 15.
Target’s customer called 9-1-1 on her own. As a result of the Target employee’s reckless abandonment of his duties to his employer, her vehicle was ultimately damaged and involved in Tamia Chapman’s death. This adds an “emotional stress” element to a possible claim against Target because of the recklessness of its security employee. That “we can’t let them get away with it” bullshit Williams is selling as he removes his glasses to fake cry isn’t found in any laws.
Target’s security and safety employee called 9-1-1 at 3:26 p.m. and abandoned the job he held to operate as a vigilante in an unlawful pursuit in his personal vehicle of the individuals driving the stolen car he didn’t lift a finger to protect his employer’s customer from losing on its property.
The incident report identifies Target’s employee as being behind the suspect vehicle from the corporation’s W. 117th Street property all the way to St. Clair Avenue near Woodworth Avenue on the Cleveland side of the street before it turns into East Cleveland. He wasn’t identified as being out of the pursuit until 3:42 p.m. Nearly 16 minutes after he initiated it.
The incident report describes how the males who’d taken Target’s customer’s vehicle without authorization observed speed and traffic laws until they appear to have realized its employee was following in his Chevy Silverado even as they drove through intersections and lights. Had Target’s safety and security employee remained on its property and protected or at least comforted its customer, from his own words the males would have driven away from their crime scene without further incident. There’s a period where an officer in a zone car describes the Target employee at Chester Avenue as being “up on him” in reference to the male driving the corporation’s customer’s stolen vehicle.
All of this information makes the location of the incident another cover-up clue. At the time the report was written Cleveland cops knew they were dealing with one of their reckless vigilante-own. He’d become inflamed over Black males robbing a white female.
The dispatch read-out shows Second District captain Keith Sulzer showing up at Target to comfort the white female instead of monitoring and controlling the pursuit. He’s the same derelict and duty-exceeding idiot who thinks police officers and Ohio Highway Patrol troopers can cut their own deals to extend patrols into municipal corporations in violation of R.C. 5503. Sulzer didn’t know Amanda Berry, Gina DeJesus and Michelle Knight were held captive in Ariel Castro’s house around the corner from his office for 10 years. They weren’t his kind of White.
If the Target employee works for a security firm sub-contractor who employs off-duty cops then leaving the property created a liability problem for the security company its owner would need cops to fix in the report. The “location” of the incident in the report was removed from Target’s property and identified as “I-90 E / W 117th Exit.” Target is not identified anywhere in the incident report itself. It’s identified in the readout of the conversations between the Caller, dispatchers and police.
Nothing in any provision of Ohio law, Cleveland’s charter, its ordinances or administrative code causes an individual employed as a municipal law enforcement officer to “be on duty 24 hours a day.” Ohio’s charter and labor laws limit municipal work weeks to 40 hours paid in bi-weekly installments. So when Williams claims municipal law enforcement officers are “on duty” 24-hours-a-day he’s engaged in obstruction since he can’t prove the claim with a law that supports it.
What should be closely-examined in the incident report are the “units” and “personnel” involved. The personnel are associated with names and badge numbers. Randolph #R1041. Harvey #1260. McMahan #1196. Walker #1007. Sabolik #S1095. Staskevich #0942. Peterson #1749. Miller #3722. Yuhas #Y1000. Kolonick #1094. The majority appear to be Catholic and Eastern European Ukrainian, Serbian, Slovenian, Croatian and Irish Catholic.
The “Caller” should not be identified anywhere within the report’s “units” and “personnel” sections. The Caller wasn’t on duty and his name should not be co-mingled among the others. His time card should not reflect any time on duty for that day. The effort Williams has gone through not to reveal the Caller under a bogus legal interpretation is another cover-up clue.
The incident report Williams’ is releasing to the public about the warrantless pursuit that led to Tamia Chapman’s death in East Cleveland contains no information about the identity of a person only described as a “Caller.”
The name of the Caller is not released under a claim in R.C. 128.32 that information about the name, address and telephone number of a 911 caller shall not be released. It’s also one of Williams’ first acts of obstruction in concealing the caller’s identity from the public.
R.C. 128.32(G) reads as follows: “No person shall disclose or use any information concerning telephone numbers, addresses, or names obtained from the data base that serves the public safety answering point of a 9-1-1 system established under this chapter, except for any of the following purposes or under any of the following circumstances.”
The statute reads that release of information “concerning” the telephone, addresses or names is not allowed. It doesn’t read that the telephone numbers, addresses and names of a 9-1-1 Caller shall not be disclosed. The information the federal and state government stores “against” names, addresses and telephone numbers is privacy-protected.
Williams can release the caller’s name. Law enforcement agencies are only restricted from sharing information that’s connected to the person’s name which is stored on the FBI’s National Crime Information Database (NCIC) pursuant to the 1974 Privacy Act. All of this is spelled out in detail by Congress in 5 U.S.C. 534 that neither Williams nor the city’s law director has either read or understands. If they did the “system of records” they’re creating by collecting drivers licenses at city hall’s doors would be seen as a direct violation of the very law they’re citing.
If a federal prosecutor had any knowledge of nuances of the state and local laws that control and limit Calvin Williams’ conduct as a “chief of police” in Title 7 of Ohio’s Revised Code he or she would see obstruction in every act. Even down to a city website that lists public records access as “weekdays from 8 to 5” that he’s obstructed with a Monday, Wednesday and Friday only policy from 9 a.m. until 3:30 p.m.
A federal prosecutor who understood the nuances of the state’s laws regarding the “authority” of “chiefs of police” pursuant to R.C. 737.06 would see even more conspiratorial obstruction to violate the rights of two municipal office holders, the mayor and safety director, by writing his own rules instead of those written by the safety director under the mayor in R.C. 737.11. Williams hasn’t obeyed either state statute; which would make his entire administrative operation an easy target for an attorney who understands the corrupt practices embedded within the Cleveland Division of Police.
Now imagine an entire municipal government of similiarly-minded elected and appointed public officials who can’t recite the first three words of the U.S. Constitution they swore to obey; and who all have duties prescribed within laws they haven’t read not knowing laws they’ve enacted are being obstructed by Williams’ “policies.”