Send us Fan Mail

In this episode, Gregg Owen, a former Cook County homicide prosecutor and author of Convergence, discusses a 1976 double murder prosecution and the events surrounding it, as he recounts them. Owen describes an initial courtroom assignment he characterizes as irregular, a period during which physical evidence went missing from a Cook County Sheriff's Office inventory space, and an incident in which he says he was offered cash to alter the substance of his closing argument. These accounts reflect Owen's personal recollection of events from the late 1970s and early 1980s and have not been independently verified by The Infamous Ex-Chief; listeners should understand this episode as Owen's own retelling, not as new investigative reporting by this platform. No claim is made here that any named individual committed a crime beyond what is reflected in the public record of the underlying case, which concluded with a guilty plea following an appellate reversal on grounds of prosecutorial misconduct.

Owen also discusses Operation Greylord, the federal investigation into judicial corruption in Cook County that became public in the 1980s, and his earlier career as a touring musician.

Host Scott Gardner is a former Ohio police chief and homicide detective who operates The Infamous Ex-Chief, an independent accountability and public records journalism platform.

Convergence is available through major booksellers and audiobook platforms. Gregg Owen can be found on Instagram at greggowen26 and at greggowen26.com.

Support the show

Visit: https://www.liinks.co/the.infamous.exchief

Send us Fan Mail

On September 3, 2026, Scott Gardner extended a settlement offer to the Village of Mantua in his pending mandamus action, which raises a question of first impression under Ohio law: whether an independent, multi-platform investigative journalist qualifies for the public records requester exception set out in Revised Code 149.43(B)(9)(c). The offer proposed to waive statutory damages, stipulate to undisputed facts, and allow the Eleventh District Court of Appeals to rule directly on the underlying legal question, without discovery or extended motion practice.

According to Gardner, counsel for the Village, Matt Markling, did not accept or reject the offer. Gardner states that Markling instead indicated the applicable local appellate rules already placed the matter on an expedited schedule. Gardner followed up in writing two days later requesting clarification of whether this reflected the Village's position. Five days after that, according to Gardner, Markling filed a motion for definite statement under Ohio Civil Rule 12(E).

Civil Rule 12(E) permits a motion for definite statement when a pleading is so vague or ambiguous that a party cannot reasonably prepare a response. This episode reviews the three grounds Gardner reports the motion raised: (1) that Gardner's petition listed a business address rather than a residential address, (2) that Gardner did not submit documentation establishing journalist status, including a federal tax identification number, and (3) that the petition did not identify where a required pre-filing complaint was served.

On the first point, Civil Rule 11 requires a pro se party to state an address for service, without specifying that the address be residential. Gardner states his business address is registered with the Ohio Secretary of State and has been used by Markling's office for service throughout the litigation without prior objection.

On the second point, Revised Code 149.43(B)(9)(c) requires that a written request state the requester's name and title, the name and address of the requester's employer, and a statement explaining how disclosure would serve the public interest. This episode does not assert that the statute requires additional documentation such as a federal tax identification number; that characterization is presented as Gardner's own reading of the statutory text, which listeners and legal readers may wish to verify independently.

On the third point, Gardner states that the Village's own motion cites the exhibit identifying where the pre-filing complaint was served, which Gardner contends is inconsistent with the claim that this information was omitted.

This episode also discusses a comparable, ongoing matter involving the Village of Garrettsville, where Gardner reports extending a similarly structured offer to attorney William Mason on September 4, 2026, addressing the calculation methodology for body camera record fees under Revised Code 149.43. As of this recording, Gardner states no response of any kind, including a motion for definite statement, has been filed by Garrettsville's counsel. This episode expressly does not characterize that silence as improper, obstructive, or equivalent to Mantua's response, and draws no inference about the Village of Garrettsville's position or intentions.

No court has ruled on the merits of the underlying journalist-exception question addressed in this episode, and no finding has been made regarding the propriety of any party's litigation conduct. Statements characterizing the motives, strategy, or billing practices of counsel for the Village of Mantua reflect Gardner's personal opinion and are clearly identified as such; this episode does not represent that Gardner has direct knowledge of any attorney's engagement terms, billing arrangements, or internal communications with a client.

Relevant statutory and procedural citations:

• Ohio Revised Code 149.43(B)(9)(c) (public records journalist exception)
• Ohio Revised Code 149.43(B)(1) (public records fee provisions)
• Ohio Civil Rule 11 (signing of pleadings; address requirement)
• Ohio Civil Rule 12(E) (motion for definite statement)

Underlying filings referenced in this episode are publicly available and are linked for independent review.

Be loud. Be heard. Shake the system until the truth falls out.

Support the show

Visit: https://www.liinks.co/the.infamous.exchief

Send us Fan Mail

Five episodes into the Rocky River investigation, this installment examines the special prosecutor's own investigative memoranda, obtained directly and reviewed in full for the first time on this platform.

The memoranda, addressed to Rocky River Law Director Michael O'Shea and dated August 17 and September 22, 2023, contain a legal analysis under six Ohio statutes: sexual battery (R.C. 2907.03), unlawful sexual conduct with a minor, gross sexual imposition, sexual imposition, importuning, and dereliction of duty. This episode focuses on the sexual battery analysis under R.C. 2907.03(A)(7), which addresses conduct by a person in a position of authority at a school where the victim is a student, and examines the evidentiary basis for the prosecutor's charging determination, including the exclusion of a walk-in witness statement and its intersection with Ohio's mandatory reporting statute, R.C. 2151.421.

The episode also reviews a signed personnel action by Rocky River Police Chief George Lichtman documenting a standards-of-conduct violation, and the personnel record following that finding through the officer's retirement roughly eight months later.

Statutory references: R.C. 149.43 (public records), R.C. 2907.03 (sexual battery), R.C. 2151.421 (mandatory reporting).

Support the show

Visit: https://www.liinks.co/the.infamous.exchief