The Court’s Response

Judges and magistrates have frequently expressed frustration over the case, telling defendants that the truth is obvious: the defendants are lying; the defendants refuse to take the court’s penalties seriously; and the court is bound to issue protective orders against their behavior.

Here are some examples:

In a case against Scott Walker, the court says:

“What I’m going to tell you, Mr. Walker, is I guess I just don’t believe you.  You know, you’re going by at 9:27 a.m.  I don’t believe you were beeping at the Clementes.  You were beeping because you were going by the Krliches’ house, and you knew it.  You were going by at 10:32 in the evening.  You’re not beeping at the Clementes, you’re beeping at the Krliches. I think you’re just trying to play cat and mouse … I think it’s a shame, too … You don’t think it’s all that big of a deal and it’s either kind of a joke or it’s just something kind of minor or something like that, but it’s not.”

In the case against Josh Wilson, the court stated:

“You  know, you both testified; about half  of  Hubbard  thinks  this is  just  a fun thing thing to do. And it’s crazy. What ‘s wrong with half of Hubbard?  What on earth  is wrong with people?…  You’re a young guy. 21 years old. I understand what it’s like to be young and do something  that’s a goof and continue doing stuff. But this is so absurd.  By  your own acknowledgement you’re aware that there’s a whole community that thinks it’s just, just a fun thing to do to try and make his life miserable. And that’s sick. It’s sick. In Girard Municipal Court, you pled to a disorderly conduct and you’re still doing this stuff… what the heck does it take? I feel like getting a bullhorn and putting it on top of a car and riding through Hubbard and saying hey, idiots, cut it out. This is stupid, immature, ridiculous, sick, awful behavior.”

The case against Ron Duez:

“You’ve been more forthright than several other witnesses, Mr. Duez, but I do believe that you have engaged in conduct over a period of time that was intentional and was intended to harass. It was part of the general thought process going on in Hubbard that it’s sort of comical and/or a thing to do, to drive by Mr. Krlich’s house and to harass him by beeping the horn. … And it’s just such a crazy situation. It’s so unnecessary. The Court feels that, first of all, the standard has been met. Secondly, that it really doesn’t have much of an alternative in many of these cases but to issue a protection order. I am going to recommend the issuance of a protection order in this case.”

The case against Joe Takash:

“I think it is a pattern of conduct … it was certainly intended. When there is an obvious intention to cause mental distress to another person by doing this ongoing pattern of conduct, then that is sufficient to justify a finding of menacing by stalking.”

The case against Beede Chick:

“I don’t have any qualms about the township and/or city of Hubbard. I don’t think it’s a bad place. But it boggles my mind, because I don’t have any question in my mind that there have been an inordinate number of people who thought this was a funny thing to do, and who knew how much time it was taking up from the police, who knew it was taking up the court … and who keep doing it and think it’s just a gag.”