(C) Ohio Capital Journal
This story was originally published by Ohio Capital Journal and is unaltered.
. . . . . . . . . .
‘Exonerated’ — Ohio judge removes lawmaker’s protection order against Rep. Elliot Forhan • Ohio Capital Journal [1]
['Morgan Trau', 'Susan Tebben', 'Megan Henry', 'More From Author', '- April']
Date: 2024-04-12
But when it comes to the civil matter, Dyke sided with Forhan, not just denying this request to continue the protecting order but also vacating the previously granted court order.
“I feel very vindicated today by the court’s opinion, but the fact remains, Morgan — there’s been a lot of damage done,” Forhan said in an exclusive interview.
Brent also sat down to give her first interview about this situation.
“Regardless of what the magistrate came to the conclusion with, I know for sure that I did not feel safe or secure around Representative Elliott Forhan,” Brent said.
“Do you still feel unsafe?” WEWS/OCJ asked.
“I still feel that way,” she answered.
Recap
Brent filed and received a protection order against Forhan after numerous incidents of harassment, she said, including several videos made about her and showing up at her home in June.
“I love you,” Forhan can be heard saying to Brent in a now-deleted, yet saved by us, TikTok video.
Brent also filed a police report after Forhan allegedly came to her house after the restraining order was filed. Forhan denied this, saying he only went to Brent’s home once in the summer.
On Friday, the pair were in court.
“She’s testified that she changed her routine, she asked her coworkers to accompany her to her vehicle, she accepted security when it was offered to her and she tried to stay away from the respondent,” said Brent’s attorney, Melissa Kelly, according to court transcripts obtained by us. “And changes in routine are absolutely understood in Ohio law to be evidence of mental distress.”
Forhan, an attorney, represented himself during the trial. He never meant to scare her or anyone else, he said.
“I’ve been hurt by the reaction to my apologies. People might think that they’re weird or awkward. People might think that I’m weird or awkward. It’s hurtful, but — maybe I am a little odd, but I did not engage in any pattern of conduct to knowingly cause anyone to believe that I would cause them physical harm or mental distress,” Forhan said in closing statements.
The representative told us that he believes he is autistic, which is why he may struggle with social situations.
Forhan also said that the protection order is based on nothing.
In Brent’s police report, an officer documented that Brent accused Forhan of coming to her home on Nov. 20 and dropping off a letter for her. She claimed to have this on video surveillance.
Then, on Nov. 21, Brent alleged that her personal security detail — not city law enforcement — saw a truck drive down her street. The vehicle slowed to a crawl near Brent’s address and noticed the security, according to the document of the lawmaker’s recollection. The driver “resembled” Forhan, according to the security detail. The truck left and did not return, according to the report.
Forhan has adamantly denied these allegations since they came out — sharing he does not even own a truck. He has also asked for Brent to publish the video and letter since he says he knows they don’t exist.
WEWS/OCJ has tried for months to get this information, and so did Cleveland police.
“Officers asked for but ultimately never received a copy of the referenced letter nor a copy of the referenced video,” the city told me.
In discovery documents obtained by us, Brent’s legal team could not provide evidence.
Originally, the team wrote, “Petitioner is in the process of downloading surveillance videos and will produce responsive video at a later date,” but in the supplemental document, the answer changed to “After a diligent investigation, none.”
Brent addressed this during the interview, saying she was never the one who said there was a note or video. When asked if the police miswrote, she said no — it was just someone else who said it.
The ruling
In a sympathetic statement to Forhan, the magistrate paints the representative as a misunderstood but well-meaning man.
“He made some mistakes but he apologized for them, repeatedly,” the decision states.
He brought up several key moments from the trial that helped make his decision.
Visit to Brent’s home
Forhan visited Brent’s home in June, as he was door-knocking for a campaign and also wanted to mend their strained relationship.
“I was going there to pay my respects to a party leader and to ask her what I can do to make things right between us because it seemed to me like something was wrong,” Forhan said in an exclusive interview with us in December.
That wasn’t the way the AG’s office saw it.
“He banged on her front door and yelled through the glass to the cousin (Yolanda Bayless) that he was Elliot Forhan and he worked with Rep. Brent,” the investigation reported. “He did not park at Rep. Brent’s house, instead parking down the street and walking to her house, which prompted another neighbor to also reach out to Rep. Brent to ensure she was safe, because it was so unusual for a White male to be walking through the neighborhood and approaching Rep. Brent’s house after dark.”
Dyke saw it from Forhan’s perspective, saying Brent didn’t even know about this until after the fact because she wasn’t home.
“He simply wanted to talk to his colleague and so he came over unannounced, knocked on a door and left after two minutes having learned she was not at home,” he wrote. “Although Ms. Brent and Ms. Bayless used the buzzwords of ‘fearful,’ ’emotional’ and ‘afraid’ in an effort to convince the court for the need for a protection order, the court remains unpersuaded.”
Brent immediately reported this to House leadership, and a meeting between leaders Brent and Forhan was held the following day. According to Russo, Forhan was defensive and did not understand the consequences of his actions. However, Forhan said he tried to apologize.
“This meeting between House members does not sway the court in any way in favor of granting a protection order,” Dyke said. “It is largely an innocuous meeting to discuss an innocuous event.”
It wasn’t innocuous because she had already told Forhan repeatedly she didn’t want to speak with him, she said.
“There was no type of justification for him to show up to my home in the evening — that is not safe at all for someone to unexpectedly show up to a colleague’s home, banging at their door for no apparent reason,” Brent told me.
The magistrate, a white man, cannot tell a woman how to feel about someone coming to their home, she argued.
“if you tell somebody you don’t want to be around them and they decide to show up to your home — that is wrong,” Brent told me. “I don’t care what this court says, that is wrong.”
[END]
---
[1] Url:
https://ohiocapitaljournal.com/2024/04/12/exonerated-ohio-judge-removes-lawmakers-protection-order-against-rep-elliot-forhan/
Published and (C) by Ohio Capital Journal
Content appears here under this condition or license: Creative Commons license CC BY-NC-ND 4.0.
via Magical.Fish Gopher News Feeds:
gopher://magical.fish/1/feeds/news/ohiocapitaljournal/
