06 October 2008

KingCast hears good news for Jerry Doyle as Defendants Pollitt, Karnes and Kilroy prepare to Defend his Amended Complaint.

11 Oct. 2011 -- Update on Jerry Doyle's physical death... his spirit will keep on keepin' on.
I just heard from Columbus that on 2 October 2008 the Federal Court, via Magistrate Judge Kemp and Judge Marbley, agreed with KingCast position that Jerry Doyle be able to amend his pro se complaint rather than dismiss it. More background, including Phillips v. Roane County, Tenn., 534 F.3d 531 C.A.6 (Tenn.),2008.

Fact: Jerry L. Doyle did not put himself "in the hole."
Fact: Jerry L. Doyle was described as a "model prisoner."
Fact: Jerry L. Doyle's captors knew of his extreme diabetic condition.
Fact: Jerry L. Doyle may have lost his leg because of willful neglect.
Fact: Jerry L. Doyle is entitled to discover exactly why he was placed "in the hole" immediately after he complained of conditions to WTVN 610 radio host Bob Conner, and he is entitled to know who ordered him "to the hole."
Fact: I am 100% positive that Mr. Doyle's captors knew he was on the radio and that they telephoned management at the jail just prior to Jerry going "to the hole."
Fact: Jerry did 119 days for disrupting a public meeting. Judge Pollitt let a cop (Stanley Byas) go free, no jail time on an assault conviction in which he actually punched someone.
Allegation: Judge Pollitt enhanced Mr. Doyle's 90-day sentence by using 29 days that were no longer properly pending from a previous matter because that probation period has passed.
Allegation: Attorney Bob Fitrakis wrote that Judge Pollitt would have let Jerry out of "the hole" if he apologized for his public comments about the School Board. Sounds like a First Amendment issue to me.

Fact: Regardless of who ordered Jerry Doyle "to the hole," this case is worth millions if a Jury believes Doyle's medical expert on causation for him losing his leg. Even without that, it's worth a lot of money and it highlights how far some people in Columbus will go to quash public dissent. In fact, watch former School Board President Mary Jo Kilroy in action, causing Board Member Loretta Heard (RIP) to say:
"What are you going to do, Mary Jo.... have everybody arrested?.... That is a slap in the fact to the community.... You are creating for this board a very nasty image in this community."

Related Columbus Dispatch feature:
Mike Harden on Jerry Doyle in 1986 and republished on 11 Sept. 2008.


Christopher King said...

Jerry and I both know that you just have to keep on keepin' on. Here is a copy of the republished Columbus Dispatch Feature from 11 Sept. 2008:

Jerry Doyle, too, says 'I have a dream'
(Originally published Jan. 22, 1986)
Thursday, September 11, 2008 1:33 PM
By Mike Harden

A sharp-toothed wind flapped the poster-board sign Jerry Doyle held aloft to curious motorists on Indianola Ave. on Monday. It played at the hem of his worn, brown overcoat and stung his face.

If he noticed it at all, he said nothing. After all, he had not selected Monday to picket the T. Marzetti Co., 3838 Indianola Ave., on the basis of a favorable weather forecast. He chose the day because it commemorated the life of another black man who had spent his life in protest and whose likeness graced the placard.

"I have a dream," the poster proclaimed. Beside the quote was the date, March 28, 1980. That was the day T. Marzetti Co. fired Jerry Doyle from his job as a line stacker for, as Jerry claims, leaving the production line without permission to use the restroom. The company contends that Jerry was fired because of his "disruptive influence" on production, that he had been walking away from his work station two or three times a day during the last month he was employed.

For six years, Doyle has been fighting Marzetti and its parent company, Lancaster Colony, with the hope of being restored to his job and obtaining restitution for his back pay. Along the way, he has been forced to give up his home, has endured util-ity shutoffs, even sold part of his furniture to help pay legal fees and feed his five children.

The curious thing about the case of the 33-year-old Doyle is that he actually won it more than three years ago. It was at that time, defending his case on appeal before the Ohio Civil Rights Commission, that he won a 3-2 decision which led to the commission's issuance of a cease-and-desist order requiring Marzetti to restore Doyle to his job with back pay.

Marzetti appealed the decision to the Court of Common Pleas. Doyle's attorney filed suit in federal court. For want of a trial date it now languishes in both, six years after the firing.

When asked how long it might be before the matter is finally resolved, Marzetti's attorney Paul Aucoin offered, "It is not unrealistic to think three to five years. My hope is to resolve it within one or two years."

"I have lost everything but my family and my mind," Doyle said. Indeed, when Doyle picketed Marzetti on Monday, his 9-year-old daughter and 7-year-old son were at his side.

"This corporation has to realize," Doyle said Monday, "that they cannot walk over innocent people and destroy their families. They not only violated my civil rights, they violated my human rights. I'm being punished like I'm the criminal.

"Paul Aucoin, their attorney, knows that I've told the truth."

Answered Aucoin, "Basically, Jerry tells what he perceives to be the truth. I'd be the first to admit it." But, he adds, "I have never for one second doubted that my clients are telling the truth."

Part of the problem is that it appears the litigants are arguing two separate cases. Jerry says that his firing had racial overtones, that he was wrongly charged with destroying company property (letting cases fall off the production line onto the floor). In fact, he says, the line was stopped when he left it on that last day to use the restroom only to return to discover he had been fired.

The company argues that it fired Jerry Doyle, who at one time had been, according to Aucoin, a "star employee," only after several reprimands and three or four months of continuing problems with him.

Doyle feels Marzetti's has been stringing out the suit, noting that the matter could have been resolved if the company had obeyed the cease-and-desist order issued three years ago. Aucoin suggests that when Doyle's attorney filed suit in federal court the action invited two or three more years of litigation. In fact, the case has already been postponed twice in federal court because of the retirement or illness of a judge.

"Don't give up!" a Marzetti employee shouted to Jerry upon observing his sidewalk vigil.

Jerry Doyle may be right. He may be wrong. But in a nation which espouses the belief that justice deferred is justice denied, he shouldn't have to go to the poorhouse waiting to find out.


In 1988, Jerry Doyle won his long fight to regain his job, when a federal court order required Marzetti to rehire Doyle and pay him $112,906 in back wages and punitive damages. Marzetti and Doyle reach an out-of-court settlement , and Doyle never returned to work at the company.

Christopher King said...

Speaking of employment, let's go back to 1998 and a trial that you see a clip of in the "American Laywer" video at KingCast.net

Doyle v. Oakfield Convalescent Center
Not Reported in N.E.2d, 1998 WL 614612
Ohio App. 10 Dist.,1998.
September 01, 1998 (Approx. 1 page)

"In his sole assignment of error, appellant contends the trial court erred in granting appellee's motion for a directed verdict. In support of his argument, appellant directs us to his motion for a new trial which contended there was a material issue at hand. Specifically, appellant contended there was no legitimate reason for his termination.

Appellant pointed to evidence from the trial, including alleged evidence that: he had been written-up for being late but, in fact, had either never been late or had been only 3.76 minutes late; he had been written-up for posting flyers, but he had never actually so posted; he was a good worker; he had attempted to relate certain concerns to appellee's administrator but got no answers; and, as to the trial itself, the trial court made various prejudicial comments concerning appellant's case in general and appellant's counsel."

(Appeal denied)


In this case my opposing counsel didn't ever file a pretrial brief and borrowed exhibits from me because he was unprepared.

The Court called in police as he granted the directed verdict and threatened that if I objected or said anything that Jerry and I would be arrested.

Jurors saw me in the hallway and were perplexed, several of them asking if we had settled the case because "it looked like they didn't treat him right."

I'll keep a civil tongue, but let's just say there were triable issues of fact and I respectfully assert that case should have gone to the Jury for its consideration; basically the Judge usurped the role of the Jury.

Just another example of how I allegedly couldn't effectively represent my clients.

Odd then, that I'm still Jerry's favorite and most trusted lawyer, isn't it?

Could tenured OSU/Moritz School of Law Professor Lou Jacobs have been correct when he wrote that "racism, ignorance and reactionary politics" played a role in my suspension?

Christopher King said...

This is how I "lost" the case for Jerry Doyle when no other lawyer would sue for him as City Council refused to allow him to speak for about nine (9) months straight on off-agenda items.

Basically the Court said that City Council could restrict him, but after we sued they immediately ceased to restrict him, and he was free to speak on the topics that concerned him, be they repetitive or not:

Remember, this was "Off-Agenda" speech.

Note that the real reason for restrictions was this:

"In 1996, he tangled with the Columbus City Council when then-council President John P. Kennedy barred him from speaking. Kennedy complained that Doyle kept protesting two things: the city paying for police protection at a Ku Klux Klan rally, and his mistreatment by the school board.

Doyle filed a federal lawsuit over that. A judge dismissed that case in 1997, and a judge threw out a similar suit in 1999. "Jerry Doyle coming in with a white suit, accusing (Mayor) Mike Coleman of being a slave on the white man's plantation" was too much, Kennedy said."

So we got what we were looking for, specifically his right to speak, unfettered, but no monetary award and no judgment in our favor; the case just kind of went away.

This one will not.


Judge Smith, who entered the first ruling on the case, is a former City Prosecutor.

Judge Marbley, who issued this order, now holds Mr. Doyle's current case.


Doyle v. City of Columbus
41 F.Supp.2d 765
December 18, 1998 (Approx. 4 pages)

MARBLEY, District Judge.
This cause comes before this Court on Defendant's Motion For Summary Judgment. For the reasons set forth below, this Motion is GRANTED.

I. BackgroundFN1

FN1. This case was originally assigned to the Honorable George C. Smith, who issued a detailed Opinion and Order on February 21, 1997. Because of a conflict which later developed, however, this case was transferred to this Court. For a detailed discussion of the factual basis of this case, see Judge Smith's February 21, 1997 Opinion and Order.

Plaintiff Jerry Doyle brought this suit on February 10, 1997, alleging Defendant City of Columbus (“the City”) violated his right to free speech by refusing to allow *766 him to speak at City Council meetings. Pursuant to this free speech allegation, Mr. Doyle brought claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for alleged violation of his rights secured by the First, Thirteenth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution.

He also brought state law claims for extreme emotional distress, common law breach of contract, promissory estoppel and subornment of assault and battery. The assault claim stems from an incident where a police officer, while escorting Mr. Doyle from a City Council meeting, allegedly pushed him to the ground.

Mr. Doyle seeks declaratory and injunctive relief, as well as compensatory and punitive damages and attorney's fees. The City of Columbus now moves for Summary Judgment, arguing that the actions of the City Council in restricting Mr. Doyle's speech fell into the constitutionally permissible category of reasonable time, place and manner regulation.

III. The Law of This Case Holds That The Speaking Restrictions at Columbus City Council Meetings Constitute Reasonable Time, Place and Manner Restrictions.

In its February 21, 1997, Opinion and Order, this Court, through Judge Smith (see Fn 1, supra.) denied Mr. Doyle's motion for a temporary restraining order to enjoin the City from prohibiting Mr. Doyle from speaking at the City Council.

Noting that substantial probability of success on the merits is a key element that a party must prove in order to obtain a temporary restraining order, the Court concluded that a restraining order should not be issued because “City Council did not impermissibly prohibit plaintiff from speaking based on the nature and content of his speech.” Opinion and Order, p. 10.

After a thorough discussion, Judge Smith concluded that the City Council is a limited public forum, and its restrictions on public speech (such as limiting the subject matter to items on the agenda, and prohibiting repetitive comments) are content-neutral, constitutionally permissible time, place and *767 manner regulation. These findings constitute the law of the case.

This Court is compelled follow the law already set forth in this case by Judge Smith, under the well-established law-of-the-case doctrine. “As most commonly defined, the doctrine posits that when a court decides upon a rule of law, that decision should continue to govern the same issues in subsequent stages in the same case.”

Anonymous said...

Chris read The Eagle Tribune article on Saturday. Mom and child get arrested over uniform dispute. It's horrifying. The abuse of authority doesn't stop.


Christopher King said...


Thanks Izzy can you contact them for me and get my email addy to them?

As to abuses, I'm working on my next post for Jerry and it will be something like,

"KingCast tells Columbus, Ohio on Jerry Doyle's cases: You can only hate a man so much, then you have to pay him."

If you look at the decision in Doyle v. Columbus City Council

After a thorough discussion, Judge Smith concluded that the City Council is a limited public forum, and its restrictions on public speech (such as limiting the subject matter to items on the agenda, and prohibiting repetitive comments) are content-neutral, constitutionally permissible time, place and *767 manner regulation. These findings constitute the law of the case."

You can clearly see that is not time place or manner, it is a CONTENT-based restriction.

Anonymous said...

Mr. King:

In one of your earlier blogs you stated that Judge Pollitt failed to give jail time to officer Stanley Byas after an assault conviction. He was charged with assault but convicted of disorderly conduct. Why would anyone without a criminal history, convicted of disorderly conduct, get jail time. You should verify your facts before posting information on the world wide web.

Linda Byas (Wife of Officer Stanley Byas)

Christopher King said...

Dear Ms. Byas,

I took that information straight from a major media source, I apologize if it is incorrect.

If you can find the post I will double-check and issue a public retraction immediately, thank you.

Christopher King, J.D.

Christopher King said...

PS: Now as to what has happened to Jerry Doyle, both when I was his counsel and spanked the State on that trespass case (there are video clips at the "American Lawyer" film at ) and got him back into council chambers to speak, that just shows how dirty that little town really is.


-The KingCaster