Dimora Fires Back
(Let’s get ready to rummmble!)

Democratic Party boss and County Commissioner Jimmy Dimora stated at a news conference on Monday (June 29) that it was time to "fight fire with fire" as he accused the U.S. Department of Justice, in cahoots with Bush deputy chief of staff Karl Rove, of essentially launching a witch hunt against him in hopes of influencing the outcome of the 2008 presidential election. He also charged that his ethnicity is playing a role in the probe.

While the local media will scoff at such accusations, the Toledo Blade, in an editorial that ran immediately after the countywide raids were carried out, questioned their timing and purpose. If indeed skullduggery was afoot in Cuyahoga County (and there is ample reason to believe there was and perhaps still is) why not wait until after the election to launch the probe, so as to remove any possible taint of political chicanery or election manipulation?

Dimora called for a probe of a Justice Department that has been rocked by Congressional findings that federal prosecutors who failed to use their positions to go after Democrats were removed from office. Additionally, it’s a time-honored tradition for the political party exiting power in Washington to go after the other party — and yes, Democratic administrations are as guilty of this practice as Republicans. (Please go back and read my last week’s column, “Independents Unite.”)

While the guilt or innocence of Dimora is for a jury of his peers to decide (should he be indicted) the mainstream media seemingly has already made up its collective mind: As Old West hangin’ judge Roy Bean would inform defendants appearing before him “We’re going to give you a fair trial, and then we’re going to hang you.”

If Jimmy Dimora did the crime he should do the time. Period. I did both. But one of the very cornerstones of our system of justice posits: "Better 10 guilty men go free than to convict a single innocent man." And, like it or not, we have a propensity in this country to rush to judgment when flames of prejudice are fanned by an overzealous media.

To wit: During World War II, thousands of second and third generation Japanese were rounded up in this country and put into internment camps while German immigrants who had arrived in this country immediately prior to the outbreak of hostilities were not detained. Why? The Japanese “looked different” and therefore were considered untrustworthy. One of the problems of unchecked prejudice is that it knows no boundaries; if we passively allow bigotry against members of one ethnic or racial group, it surely will spread to other groups. If the government or prosecutors are allowed to treat members of one group unfairly, such treatment is bound to spread to members of other groups.

Another of the charges Dimora made — which the media will of course brand as outlandish — is that by removing him from office county reform has a better chance of passing. While the county certainly could stand some reforms, why were some things included and others left out?

To wit: If the reformers are proposing to go to a form of county government with elected officials from 11 districts, why didn’t they include the courts in the reform? If judges were elected within those 11 districts, then, instead of having only one or two judges of color on the county bench, nine or 10 out of the 34 seats would be occupied by black and brown people — a figure that’s reflective of our population within the county. Why was that taken off the table, if fair reform is what those who are formulating the plan are seeking? I asked that question of Parma Heights Mayor Martin Zanotti at a recent debate over reform held at Cleveland State, but got no answer. Minorities are more likely to be impacted by the criminal justice system, is that the reason it wasn’t included in the reform package? Issues like this make me (and others) suspicious of the intentions of the reformers.

Further, why is the prosecutor the only elected official (other than the one county administrator) under the proposed system? This also causes suspicions similar to the kind Dimora is raising.

To wit: Michael Green was convicted of rape and served 13 years in prison. The Sentencing Project finally got the DNA evidence properly tested (over the objections of the Prosecutor’s Office) and it was discovered that another man, who was currently serving a sentence for rape, was the guilty party. When confronted with the evidence the man confessed. Green was released from prison, but when he applied for the $25,000 per year falsely imprisoned individuals are entitled to from the state, the Prosecutor’s Office filed a motion to block Green from receiving the funds. Why? The money was coming from the state, not county coffers. Again, why the objection to an innocent man being fairly compensated? I’ve never gotten a straight answer to that question from anyone.

Dimora said at his press conference “I’m no angel.” I would suspect that he, like all of us, has done something over the last 30 years that a case could be made for prosecution … if someone were trying hard enough. But what the feds are seemingly get set to do in his case is what local prosecutors have been doing to folks for years. It’s called “over-indicting.”

A person gets caught with some nickel bags of weed; that’s one case. The cell phone he has in his possession is deemed to be a criminal tool and becomes another case; the car he was driving becomes a third case; the money in his pocket to make change becomes a fourth case — and in America we call this fair.

As we should have learned in the original O.J. case, the law should not seek to frame even a guilty man. He was guilty as hell, but the case was lost when they planted the glove — just for good measure.

As Dimora fights back, I can envision a young reporter rushing into a superior’s office and saying, “That Jimmy Dimora is distorting the facts, using innuendo, making wild-assed accusations, and engaging in character assassination … I thought only the media was allowed to do that!”

From Cool Cleveland contributor Mansfield B. Frazier mansfieldfATgmail.com

Frazier's From Behind The Wall: Commentary on Crime, Punishment, Race and the Underclass by a Prison Inmate is available again in hardback. Snag your copy and have it signed by the author by visiting http://www.frombehindthewall.com.
(:divend:)