Speaker 1: By Billy Cunningham less continue. Of course, Attorney Doug Brannon
Speaker 1: represents Alex Shrevinsky. He was the victim of a beatdown
Speaker 1: after the music festival, also a Reds game in which
Speaker 1: there were hundreds of thousands of individuals downtown Cincinnati, not
Speaker 1: well guarded by the police department. My dad and Alex
Speaker 1: Stravinsky was beaten down, and there was a big news
Speaker 1: conference held a few weeks later by the city council
Speaker 1: members and by the mayor, and by so called civil
Speaker 1: rights leaders who talked about the white guy's gotta be
Speaker 1: charged because it's only fair the white guy started at all.
Speaker 1: Now we have the tape. We have the tape from
Speaker 1: three CDC that in the case that's not the case.
Speaker 1: Joining you and I now is Doug Brannon, the attorney
Speaker 1: for Alex Stravinsky. And once again Doug Brannon, welcome to
Speaker 1: the Bill Cunningham Show. And first of all, attorney of Brannon,
Speaker 1: can you tell the American people, having reviewed the tape,
Speaker 1: what does this do to the case against your client
Speaker 1: criminally and what does this say about the investigation.
Speaker 2: The opportunity to come on and talk to you about this,
Speaker 2: we have had a chance to review the three CDC
Speaker 2: tape and it unquestionably exonerates Alex from any wrongdoing in
Speaker 2: the census. He was hit and beaten multiple times. We
Speaker 2: have said this from the very beginning of how he
Speaker 2: was attacked by multiple people multiple times, long before he
Speaker 2: tried to confront one of the attackers and telling him
Speaker 2: to stop. And you know, this tape is dramatically changes
Speaker 2: or should change the reality of what they've been portraying
Speaker 2: politically versus what actually happened that day.
Speaker 1: Do you think the city will now drop the criminal
Speaker 1: charges against your victimized client? Is that this tape shows
Speaker 1: that this tape indicates that your clients should not have
Speaker 1: been criminally charged.
Speaker 3: Correct? Correct?
Speaker 2: And I don't think any law enforcement officer ever wanted
Speaker 2: to charge Alex because they knew what the actual facts
Speaker 2: were behind us. This was politically motivated to charge him
Speaker 2: and prosecute him. You know, they needed the public needs
Speaker 2: to speak up and voice their concern over this prosecution
Speaker 2: because it's wrong, it shouldn't be occurring, and their criminal
Speaker 2: they're revictimizing somebody that's already been brutally victimized and beaten.
Speaker 1: How's your client doing today? This began July twenty sixth.
Speaker 1: Here we are October thirty. First, it's been what about
Speaker 1: four minds? How's your client doing physically?
Speaker 2: You know, physically he is. He has made some strides
Speaker 2: in recovering. He suffered a large concussion as a result
Speaker 2: of the beating. You know, mentally it has been very
Speaker 2: difficult for him to get around other people, large crowds.
Speaker 2: You know, having been attack like this by a large crowd.
Speaker 2: You know, he still is suffering greatly from this.
Speaker 1: You're also a noted personal injuries civil rights attorney. What
Speaker 1: does this do to the the pending civil lawsuit against
Speaker 1: the city who purposely filed criminal charges against an innocent
Speaker 1: man because of his race? What does that do to
Speaker 1: the civil lawsuit?
Speaker 2: I think that it just gives more credence to the
Speaker 2: viability of those quaims against any against the city of Cincinnati.
Speaker 2: You know, this is not a claim that had to
Speaker 2: be brought. This is a claim that they brought upon
Speaker 2: themselves for their own wrongful conduct in initiating a wrongful
Speaker 2: criminal prosecution against Alex.
Speaker 1: Have you considered I spoke to a US senator recently
Speaker 1: about this. These are US civil rights violations against the
Speaker 1: city of Cincinnati that could have criminal elements, could have
Speaker 1: civil elements against it, because a city under the color
Speaker 1: of state or city ordinances in law, cannot violate the
Speaker 1: civil rights of any innocent person. In the nineteen fifties
Speaker 1: and sixties, you had Democrats in the South filing criminal
Speaker 1: charges against people because of the color of their skin,
Speaker 1: and the Birmingham and etc. Paid big money. Here we
Speaker 1: are in twenty twenty five and the same Democratic party
Speaker 1: but with different leaders, are filing have filed criminal charges
Speaker 1: against an innocent person for racial and political reasons. What
Speaker 1: does that do to the civil rights lawsuit and could
Speaker 1: it have criminal elements to it?
Speaker 2: You know, that is an interesting question, Bill, and I
Speaker 2: think the federal government should be looking at this, and
Speaker 2: that falls under the purview of the federal prosecutors in
Speaker 2: federal court, and it certainly bears looking at because obviously
Speaker 2: I don't think this criminal charge would have been brought
Speaker 2: against Alex had he not been white.
Speaker 1: Well, that's what the city fathers and mothers said that
Speaker 1: they held a news conference and actually said, including state
Speaker 1: Representative Cecil Thomas, this is the color of state law.
Speaker 1: Who demanded that their city that they led and continue
Speaker 1: to lead file charges and someone based upon their race,
Speaker 1: and they felt so comfortable about it they did it
Speaker 1: publicly in front of news, in front of microphones and cameras.
Speaker 1: That's how stupid this crowd is. If you're going to
Speaker 1: act in such a horrible way, do it privately, but
Speaker 1: don't publicize your stupidity.
Speaker 2: And they're still doing it publicly because they're still prosecuting Alex.
Speaker 2: This is how crazy these people are and continuing this
Speaker 2: wrongful criminal prosecution, especially after this tape has been made published.
Speaker 2: But they note about this tape. They've seen this tape previously,
Speaker 2: they've note about it since the conception of the events. Yes,
Speaker 2: they've done nothing to stop this criminal prosecution.
Speaker 1: As we sit here at twelve forty five pm on
Speaker 1: a Friday, Halloween, which is appropriate for this story, the
Speaker 1: criminal prosecution of your client continues by the crowd who
Speaker 1: demanded he'd be charged because of the color of his skin.
Speaker 1: Let's go back in time a little bit here and
Speaker 1: talk about how the charges were filed against their crime
Speaker 1: their client. I think the fourth degree misdemeanors that carry
Speaker 1: up to thirty days in jail two hundred and fifty dollars,
Speaker 1: as was told to me by Sergeant Ken Kober, who,
Speaker 1: as you know, is the head of the FOP. He
Speaker 1: said that the line officers doing the investigation would not
Speaker 1: file criminal charges against Zarenski because shall we say, they
Speaker 1: weren't proper, they were wrong. And the man in charge
Speaker 1: of the Central Business District then was Captain Henny Hnni,
Speaker 1: and now that same captain is the interim police chief.
Speaker 1: So the mayor and city manager advanced Captain Henny to
Speaker 1: the chief's position when the line officers would not file
Speaker 1: the charges. Fiji wouldn't file the charges the chief, but
Speaker 1: a captain did and he gets rewarded by being the
Speaker 1: interim chief of police. Explain that one.
Speaker 2: To me, Well, what I can tell you is, after
Speaker 2: reviewing the discovery that was provided to me in this case,
Speaker 2: that Captain Henny was not one of the detectives in
Speaker 2: charge of the investigation of this case. Typically, where you
Speaker 2: see charges being filed by an officer by investigating detectives,
Speaker 2: the ones doing the investigation that are handling the case
Speaker 2: are the ones that actually signed the criminal citation and
Speaker 2: submit that to the court.
Speaker 3: That is not what occurred in this case.
Speaker 2: Captain Henny was just the administrator he was not one
Speaker 2: of the lead investigators in this case, so there is
Speaker 2: a huge disconnect between him being involved and who the
Speaker 2: actual detectives are that are investigating this case.
Speaker 1: A cop sent me the following text quote, Hanny was
Speaker 1: in charge of the Central Business District when these violent
Speaker 1: crimes took place on July twenty sixth. He did nothing
Speaker 1: in response to the violence other than file false charges,
Speaker 1: and now he's the interim chief who's being paid off.
Speaker 3: It's like, Wow, well, I think that this is still coming.
Speaker 2: We need to We have questions for the city manager
Speaker 2: and the mayor about how this is occurring, because from
Speaker 2: the information that we have been provided, it seems like
Speaker 2: they are trying to control this criminal prosecution for political purposes.
Speaker 2: So these are city officials that need to answer for
Speaker 2: their conduct in getting involved in this particular case.
Speaker 3: Wow.
Speaker 1: Well at this point, uh, this was leaked by somebody
Speaker 1: to Fox nineteen Trisha Mackie has do you have any knowledge,
Speaker 1: as the attorney for Alex Zervinsky, who leaked this tape?
Speaker 3: I do not. I do not. It certainly didn't come
Speaker 3: from us.
Speaker 2: We have been provided discovery in the criminal case, but
Speaker 2: we have not provided this tape to to anybody else.
Speaker 2: We have been using it to prepare for our defense
Speaker 2: for trial, which is set for December eight.
Speaker 1: Did did the discovery given to you by the City
Speaker 1: of Cincinnati in the criminal case include this tape?
Speaker 2: They were provided, They provided us with certain caps they
Speaker 2: the uh. This particular tape initially was not included in
Speaker 2: the initial discovery that was provided to us.
Speaker 1: Wow, So have you thought about a referral to the
Speaker 1: US Attorney's Office for the possible criminal prosecution of the
Speaker 1: city Solicitor Emily Smartwarner, the city manager, and the mayor,
Speaker 1: and also for the public officials Cecil Thomas, Scottie Johnson,
Speaker 1: lemon Kearney. Have you thought about a criminal referral to
Speaker 1: the US Attorney's Office for federal charges against these individuals.
Speaker 2: Well, we're taking this case one step at a time, villain.
Speaker 2: The first step in my first priority is to make
Speaker 2: sure that Aleans has found not guilty of this bogus charge.
Speaker 1: And this tape proofs beyond a shadow of a doubt
Speaker 1: that the first punch was thrown at the back of
Speaker 1: your client's head by one of the criminal defendants other
Speaker 1: than your client who's criminally charged and This tape clearly
Speaker 1: shows that there were lies told by city fathers and
Speaker 1: mothers for political racial reasons in order to charge an
Speaker 1: innocent man that they knew or should have known, was
Speaker 1: not guilty of committing any criminal offense. His head was
Speaker 1: treated like a soccer ball on fourth and Alum and
Speaker 1: almost was murdered. Many people thought he was dead, kicked
Speaker 1: in the head Reginald Denny style from the nineteen eighty
Speaker 1: nine riots in Los Angeles, kicked in the head and
Speaker 1: add insult literally to injury. Their client's now facing a
Speaker 1: criminal charge, goes his head. I guess wasn't a proper
Speaker 1: soccer ball. And secondly, the city solicitor, Emily smart Warner
Speaker 1: demanded the criminal charges be filed by someone who was
Speaker 1: not in the line of the investigation, that being Captain Henny.
Speaker 1: Is that correct?
Speaker 3: You know?
Speaker 2: That is what the evidence is showing us right now. Bill,
Speaker 2: That is absolutely what we see as well. And it's
Speaker 2: clear not only did he not throw the first bunch,
Speaker 2: he didn't throw the second, he didn't throw the throw.
Speaker 3: He was hit so many times we.
Speaker 2: Lost count before he even tried to confront the victim
Speaker 2: and stop this. Then he was attacked again, and if
Speaker 2: you watch the video very carefully, as this infamous where
Speaker 2: he sticks his hand down and touched the other guy's
Speaker 2: face and tells him to stop.
Speaker 3: Another one of these thugs goes up, says.
Speaker 2: I'm going behind him to get him, and that's when
Speaker 2: he's hit from both sides. An attack from both sides,
Speaker 2: both the front.
Speaker 3: And the back. This mob had no intention of stopping.
Speaker 2: Anything he did at any time was an act of
Speaker 2: self defense and get out of there alive was all
Speaker 2: he could.
Speaker 3: Do that day.
Speaker 1: It was lucky he got out with merely serious injuries.
Speaker 1: He was lucky he got out alive. And the fact
Speaker 1: that Captain Henny, not in the line of command, would
Speaker 1: file criminal charges against an innocent person, I would have
Speaker 1: to assume that Captain Henny knew at the time that
Speaker 1: the charges were false, because he either should have seen
Speaker 1: this tape or if he didn't see it, he should
Speaker 1: have demanded to be shown to him before the criminal
Speaker 1: charges were filed. And the prosecutor's office, Connor Keelly has
Speaker 1: said repeatedly there's more to this than meets the eye.
Speaker 1: The county prosecutor is saying, look, we have more tapes
Speaker 1: and she's on her phone ire from the so called
Speaker 1: civil rights crowd not to file more criminal charges against
Speaker 1: an innocent person. But at least she's standing up to
Speaker 1: say no. But your information is that Captain Henny, who's
Speaker 1: now the interim chief, was not in the line of command.
Speaker 1: But he's the one that signed the charges, according to
Speaker 1: ken Kober. Ken Kober said on our air with Me
Speaker 1: that the reason he did it was to save his
Speaker 1: men from being disciplined by the city manager for refusing
Speaker 1: in order to file false charges against an innocent person
Speaker 1: based upon race.
Speaker 3: Think about that for a moment. It's mind boggling, isn't it. Bill?
Speaker 2: And you know, when you look at this and as
Speaker 2: we're facing trial, I'm wondering what Captain Hinny, if he's
Speaker 2: going to testify for the prosecution, what he will have to.
Speaker 3: Say as a non investigating.
Speaker 2: Personnel from the police department that seems to be the
Speaker 2: state's representative here.
Speaker 1: Well, let me make a guess. They're going to dismiss
Speaker 1: these charges after the election. They do not want you
Speaker 1: to have Captain Henny under oath. He's not you know,
Speaker 1: a cops I know say they like him. Captain Henny
Speaker 1: is now the interim chief. They like him, and he
Speaker 1: was putting in some impossible position of following false criminal
Speaker 1: charges on one hand because the city solicitor ordered it,
Speaker 1: and on the other hand, he wanted to protect his
Speaker 1: men from future action against them because they wouldn't follow
Speaker 1: an illicit, illegal order. And now Henny and Henny in
Speaker 1: consequence has been elevated because he did what the city
Speaker 1: fathers and mothers who wanted him to do. And so
Speaker 1: Henny and I say, once again, the men respect Henny,
Speaker 1: but at this point he's in a bad light. Would
Speaker 1: you get out your crystal ball where the city continue
Speaker 1: to pursue these charges against your client when they know
Speaker 1: they're false.
Speaker 2: Well, they've indicated nothing that they are going to stop
Speaker 2: pursuing these charges at this point. And like you, with
Speaker 2: this election looming, these things are certainly coming out and
Speaker 2: right now that seems to be very.
Speaker 3: Important to them.
Speaker 2: But let's see what if common sense may come to
Speaker 2: them after this election and they dismiss these charges. If not,
Speaker 2: I can't wait to get these people on the road.
Speaker 1: Well, you're getting them under oath either the criminal case,
Speaker 1: which will be dismissed, or you're getting them under oath
Speaker 1: in a civil case. And none of them can avoid
Speaker 1: that because in this opinion in a civil case, and
Speaker 1: I know federal authorities are watching this case to see
Speaker 1: what happens. I'm gonna make sure this tape goes all
Speaker 1: over the federal officials, I know, because we can't live
Speaker 1: in a society where person innocent persons are charged with
Speaker 1: criminal offenses because of the color of their skin.
Speaker 2: And no, you don't victimize victims. It's just not right, Bill,
Speaker 2: and you're all over it.
Speaker 1: Attorney Doug Brandon, representing Alex Stravinski, Thanks for coming on
Speaker 1: the Bill Cunningham Show, and I'm sure we're going to
Speaker 1: talk again, but get ready for a dismissal right after
Speaker 1: the election.
Speaker 3: Sound's good. Thanks for having me, Bill.
Speaker 1: God bless you. Let's continue with more. Well, the truth
Speaker 1: will set you free or the truth could imprison you?
Speaker 1: After have peer of all. Bill Cunningham, News Radio seven
Speaker 1: hundred WLW