Charlie KirkFeaturedMorning BellOhioOhio NewsletterPoliticsSociety

Ohio Judge Could Face Further Consequences Over Charlie Kirk Comments

Judge Ted Berry, a municipal judge for Hamilton County, is closer to being removed from the bench for social media posts celebrating the death of Charlie Kirk, thanks to a resolution filed by state representatives.

Among his other comments, Berry declared, with a clown emoji, “Rest in Hatred & Division!” He also claimed that Kirk “spewed hate & division.” Another post asked, “How’s he feel about gun violence and gun control in Hell, now?”

State Rep. Adam Mathews, one of the Republicans who introduced the resolution to remove Berry, has shared screenshots of the judge’s remarks from his own Facebook page.

Mathews spoke with The Daily Signal about his resolution, which he initiated with state Rep. D.J. Swearingen, a fellow Republican. “We have given the judge more than a month,” Mathews reminded, having called for Berry to resign Sept. 12. “And now to defend the courts and the trust that the people must have in them with an unbiased judiciary, we are moving forward with the process to remove the judge as outlined by the Ohio constitution.”

The removal process is laid out in Article IV, Section 17 of the state constitution. “Judges may be removed from office, by concurrent resolution of both houses of the general assembly, if two-thirds of the members, elected to each house, concur therein; but, no such removal shall be made, except upon complaint, the substance of which shall be entered on the journal, nor, until the party charged shall have had notice thereof, and an opportunity to be heard,” the section reads.

A press release from Mathews’ office lays out the Berry’s alleged violations:

Last month, Judge Berry publicly celebrated the death of Charlie Kirk on social media, directly violating the Ohio Code of Judicial Conduct, including:

  • Canon 1, Rule 1.2: Requires judges to uphold public confidence in the judiciary and avoid impropriety; 
  • Canon 2, Rule 2.3: Prohibits bias or prejudice on the basis of race;
  • Canon 2, Rule 2.4: Forbids judges from allowing political or personal interests to influence their judicial duties; 
  • Canon 2, Rule 2.11: Addresses disqualification due to public statements reflecting bias or prejudice.

Mathews has reposted local news coverage about the resolution, as well as Libs of TikTok and fellow state representatives, including state Rep. Josh Williams.

Berry has faced consequences before for his anti-Kirk posts. He was the board member ousted from the Joe Burrow Foundation, launched by Cincinnati Bengals quarterback Joe Burrow. In a previous conversation with The Daily Signal, Mathews noted that Berry was also disinvited from an event last month honoring retiring judges.

The municipal court declined to provide comment for The Daily Signal about the state representatives’ resolution to remove Berry.

An article from The Cincinnati Enquirer, which Mathews also shared, noted that “Berry has told The Enquirer that he does not condone violence and that he regretted if the posts caused division because that wasn’t his intent.”

Berry is not the only high-profile individual in Ohio to receive negative attention upon making such comments against Kirk after his Sept. 10 political assassination. Former state Rep. Elliot Forhan, who is running as a Democrat for attorney general in Ohio, also made derogatory comments over social media, drawing criticism from Ohio Auditor Keith Faber, a Republican running for the same position. A previous statement from Faber for The Daily Signal also referenced Berry.

Over a month later, Kirk’s death continues to draw negative comments from liberals, some who even express glee at his murder. This past weekend, during the nationwide “No Kings Day” rallies protesting President Donald Trump, many expressed that kind of jubilation, as The Daily Signal witnessed firsthand.



Source link

Related Posts

On April 12, 2021, a Knoxville police officer shot and killed an African American male student in a bathroom at Austin-East High School. The incident caused social unrest, and community members began demanding transparency about the shooting, including the release of the officer’s body camera video. On the evening of April 19, 2021, the Defendant and a group of protestors entered the Knoxville City-County Building during a Knox County Commission meeting. The Defendant activated the siren on a bullhorn and spoke through the bullhorn to demand release of the video. Uniformed police officers quickly escorted her and six other individuals out of the building and arrested them for disrupting the meeting. The court upheld defendants’ conviction for “disrupting a lawful meeting,” defined as “with the intent to prevent [a] gathering, … substantially obstruct[ing] or interfere[ing] with the meeting, procession, or gathering by physical action or verbal utterance.” Taken in the light most favorable to the State, the evidence shows that the Defendant posted on Facebook the day before the meeting and the day of the meeting that the protestors were going to “shut down” the meeting. During the meeting, the Defendant used a bullhorn to activate a siren for approximately twenty seconds. Witnesses at trial described the siren as “loud,” “high-pitched,” and “alarming.” Commissioner Jay called for “Officers,” and the Defendant stated through the bullhorn, “Knox County Commission, your meeting is over.” Commissioner Jay tried to bring the meeting back into order by banging his gavel, but the Defendant continued speaking through the bullhorn. Even when officers grabbed her and began escorting her out of the Large Assembly Room, she continued to disrupt the meeting by yelling for the officers to take their hands off her and by repeatedly calling them “murderers.” Commissioner Jay called a ten-minute recess during the incident, telling the jury that it was “virtually impossible” to continue the meeting during the Defendant’s disruption. The Defendant herself testified that the purpose of attending the meeting was to disrupt the Commission’s agenda and to force the Commission to prioritize its discussion on the school shooting. Although the duration of the disruption was about ninety seconds, the jury was able to view multiple videos of the incident and concluded that the Defendant substantially obstructed or interfered with the meeting. The evidence is sufficient to support the Defendant’s conviction. Defendant also claimed the statute was “unconstitutionally vague as applied to her because the statute does not state that it includes government meetings,” but the appellate court concluded that she had waived the argument by not raising it adequately below. Sean F. McDermott, Molly T. Martin, and Franklin Ammons, Assistant District Attorneys General, represent the state.

From State v. Every, decided by the Tennessee Court of Criminal Appeals…

1 of 108