Empire Tavern notice of appeal
March 18, 2009
Liquor Control Commission
77 South High Street 18th Floor
Columbus, OH 43215-0565
Re: APPEAL NOTICE reference
2008-2009 Renewal Application
Permit #2714575, Class D-2-2X-3-3A-6
50Five Group, Inc.
dba Emprie Tavern
2008-2010-2012-2014 Worth Avenue & Patio
Norwood, Ohio 45212
Dear Sir or Madam:
Please consider this communication a notice of appeal of the order dated March 3, 2009. Please take note that the appeal is based on the following:
1. There is no evidence in the record that the location of the permit holder’s premises constitutes a substantial interference with public decency, sobriety, peace, or good order as a result of the permit holder’s operation at the location of the permit premises.
2. There is no evidence in the record before the Division of Liquor Control that the applicant demonstrated a disregard for the laws of the state or operated a business in a manner that demonstrated a disregard for the laws, regulations or local ordinances of the state.
3. There is no evidence in the record to demonstrate that Ronny Givens sold or transferred any cocaine at the permit premises or that Crystal Chambers sold cocaine at the permit premises with the shareholder’s knowledge. Further, there is no evidence in the record to demonstrate that Donald Proud, the sole shareholder, allegedly perpetrated or facilitated any drug buys at the permit premises. Further, the sole shareholder has not been convicted of any drug offenses at this time.
4. At the time of the execution of the search warrant on June 27, 2008, the sole shareholder was not present on the premises while cocaine was present. Further, the incidents alleged were after the period when the City of Norwood objected to the renewal of the renewal of the liquor permit.
5. There is no evidence contained in the record that any fights, public urination, cocaine sales or marijuana was present at the permit premises at any time when the sole shareholder was present. Further, the permit holder demonstrated that the permit premises are not a drain on the resources of the Norwood Police Department and other liquor establishments in the City of Norwood have the same number of runs to permit premises in the City of Norwood.
6. There is no evidence in the record to demonstrate that 57 dispatch calls were directed to the permit premises or that 162 incident reports were generated as a result of the permit premises. The Division of Liquor Control cannot quantify the number of fights at the premises as the fights occurred on surrounding streets which the City of Norwood simply ascribes to the permit holder. There is no demonstration in the record that any citizen of the City of Norwood suffered as a result of the City of Norwood responding to the permit holder’s premises and the officers fulfilling their duties to maintain the peace within the City of Norwood.
7. The permit holder objects to the extra changes before the Liquor Control Commission as none of the charges have resulted in any finding of any improper conduct on the part of the permit holder and the permit holder’s premises were regularly inspected by the City of Norwood, and no citations were issued to the permit holder for any of the deficiencies listed.
8. The permit holder objects to the Division’s denial and rejection of the 2008-2009 renewal application, as the permit holder was never afforded a hearing on any allegations against the permit holder, and the permit holder has been in safekeeping for approximately nine months.
9. The permit holder requests a full hearing on this appear before the Liquor Control Commission and a hearing on all pending charges before the Commission.
Very truly yours,
Robert G. Kelly
Pc Christopher S. Brown, Esq., Norwood Law Department
David Proud
Liquor Control Commission
77 South High Street 18th Floor
Columbus, OH 43215-0565
Re: APPEAL NOTICE reference
2008-2009 Renewal Application
Permit #2714575, Class D-2-2X-3-3A-6
50Five Group, Inc.
dba Emprie Tavern
2008-2010-2012-2014 Worth Avenue & Patio
Norwood, Ohio 45212
Dear Sir or Madam:
Please consider this communication a notice of appeal of the order dated March 3, 2009. Please take note that the appeal is based on the following:
1. There is no evidence in the record that the location of the permit holder’s premises constitutes a substantial interference with public decency, sobriety, peace, or good order as a result of the permit holder’s operation at the location of the permit premises.
2. There is no evidence in the record before the Division of Liquor Control that the applicant demonstrated a disregard for the laws of the state or operated a business in a manner that demonstrated a disregard for the laws, regulations or local ordinances of the state.
3. There is no evidence in the record to demonstrate that Ronny Givens sold or transferred any cocaine at the permit premises or that Crystal Chambers sold cocaine at the permit premises with the shareholder’s knowledge. Further, there is no evidence in the record to demonstrate that Donald Proud, the sole shareholder, allegedly perpetrated or facilitated any drug buys at the permit premises. Further, the sole shareholder has not been convicted of any drug offenses at this time.
4. At the time of the execution of the search warrant on June 27, 2008, the sole shareholder was not present on the premises while cocaine was present. Further, the incidents alleged were after the period when the City of Norwood objected to the renewal of the renewal of the liquor permit.
5. There is no evidence contained in the record that any fights, public urination, cocaine sales or marijuana was present at the permit premises at any time when the sole shareholder was present. Further, the permit holder demonstrated that the permit premises are not a drain on the resources of the Norwood Police Department and other liquor establishments in the City of Norwood have the same number of runs to permit premises in the City of Norwood.
6. There is no evidence in the record to demonstrate that 57 dispatch calls were directed to the permit premises or that 162 incident reports were generated as a result of the permit premises. The Division of Liquor Control cannot quantify the number of fights at the premises as the fights occurred on surrounding streets which the City of Norwood simply ascribes to the permit holder. There is no demonstration in the record that any citizen of the City of Norwood suffered as a result of the City of Norwood responding to the permit holder’s premises and the officers fulfilling their duties to maintain the peace within the City of Norwood.
7. The permit holder objects to the extra changes before the Liquor Control Commission as none of the charges have resulted in any finding of any improper conduct on the part of the permit holder and the permit holder’s premises were regularly inspected by the City of Norwood, and no citations were issued to the permit holder for any of the deficiencies listed.
8. The permit holder objects to the Division’s denial and rejection of the 2008-2009 renewal application, as the permit holder was never afforded a hearing on any allegations against the permit holder, and the permit holder has been in safekeeping for approximately nine months.
9. The permit holder requests a full hearing on this appear before the Liquor Control Commission and a hearing on all pending charges before the Commission.
Very truly yours,
Robert G. Kelly
Pc Christopher S. Brown, Esq., Norwood Law Department
David Proud
posted by Citizens For A Better Norwood at
4:55 AM
