What happened at the Liquor Board on February 27, 2014.

Chairman Fogleman noted that Mr. Choo has worked at Mall Spirits at 6630 Reisterstown Road in Baltimore City. He asked Mr. Choo if his establishment had had any violations with the Board while he was on the other license, and Mr. Choo responded that it had not.

The Board expressed concern about the possibility that someone could pass an alcoholic beverage to underage patrons at a performance. The applicants reassured the Board that the house management staff would be monitoring alcohol consumption, that the average audience age is in the 40s, and that minors generally attend CSC shows (if at all) in the company of their parents.

Chairman Fogleman noted that the application lacked information on who will be the full time operator of the facility. The applicants told the Board that the managing director will be Leslie Helm and that Ian Gallanar will be the artistic director. Chairman Fogleman noted that the Board does need to know before CSC opens who the full time manager will be. He told the applicants that they will need to amend their application to include this information, that they could do so by letter, and that the amendment would not have to be physically on the application.

Chairman Fogleman also inquired about the purchase price of the business, which was another piece of information that was missing from the application. The applicants replied that the purchase price for the building was $1.25 million and that the liquor license had been purchased independently for $45,000. The applicants did not know who was the current licensee was, and the Board did not have the information at hand, either. The Chairman indicated that they would have to clarify this for their application to be complete. Mr. Helm indicated that the broker involved in the purchase of the license was sensitive about the identity of the current licensee.

Watch the hearing on YouTube:

BLLC staff also scheduled the hearing without a complete application on file, including the name of the full-time operator of the business and the purchase price of the business.

The applicant has worked with the Glen Neighborhood Association, and to the best of the applicant’s knowledge, the association has no objection to the transfer of ownership. She submitted three letters of support of the transfer from community businesses.

Chairman Fogleman noted that there is a $26,000 lien (debt) attached to the license, which needs to be taken care of before the applicant can pick up the license.

The Board then examined the three required character witnesses in the application. Only two character witnesses of the five provided in the file satisfied the statutory requirement of being both real property owners and registered voters in Baltimore City. Chairman Fogleman informed the applicant that she would have to come back with another character witness signature filled in on the application and that the Board would have to hold another hearing the following week.

The Board did not ask for any citations to state law or to relevant caselaw but decided to take a brief recess in order to look at the law and decide what to do.

When the Board reconvened, Chairman Fogleman explained that the Board took the recess so that it would not be rushed into a decision. He noted that this issue has come up before: that occasionally applicants for liquor licenses do not have a valid corporation on the date of their hearing but rather file a week afterwards. The Chairman stated that this practice does not give enough transparency for those who might be concerned about a license. Article 2B section 9-101 shows that you do not have to have a corporate entity in order to hold a liquor license. You can hold a license as a sole proprietorship. However, when you apply for a license and represent that you have a corporation on the application, you should have an incorporated organization. He added that a corporation can’t be in good standing with the State until it files its articles with the State. The Chairman told Mr. Kodenski and his clients that the Board knows that Kodenski will file the articles, so the Board will hear testimony about the corporation and will order the applicant to bring proof of good standing by close of business tomorrow.

The Chairman also pointed out that the applicants had signed the application as officers of a corporate entity that did not exist.

Mr. Kodenski told the Board that the omission was not the applicants’ faults; Mr. Kodenski was supposed to prepare the documents before the snowstorm in February and the weather got in the way.

Chairman Fogleman replied that the Board had allowed this practice (of applicants not having a valid corporate entity) for a long time, and that the Board has meant to address it for a while.

The applicants submitted a letter in support of the project from Mr. Dan Tracy of the Canton Community Association, subject to the applicants’ agreement to follow voluntary outdoor table service guidelines. They also submitted a petition of neighbors in support of the project. Alcohol sales should be a relatively small percentage of total sales. The applicants are not applying for live entertainment. Mr. Chang is currently a licensee on the license for his family’s restaurant in Howard County.

Mr. Abolfzl Kamouei testified in opposition to the transfer; he told the Board that he and his brother had already paid a large deposit for the license, but that the building had had major structural issues. Mr. Kamouei told the Board that the current licensees are transferring the license without giving Mr. Kamouei and his brother their deposit back.

Mr. Kodenski pointed out to Mr. Kamouei that there is an ongoing criminal investigation regarding the lease of the building, and he reminded Mr. Kamouei that he was testifying under oath. Chairman Fogleman asked Mr. Kamouei whether he understood his Fifth Amendment rights; Mr. Kamouei replied that he did.

At this point in the hearing, Commissioner Jones recused himself from the proceedings because he had some connection to this property in his other position at the Baltimore City Housing Department.

Employment Records Violations: BLLC agent Mark Fosler testified that he had seen all required employment records, and that he had not personally witnessed any violations of the Rules at this address. Supervisor Qist Ka’bah testified that he had asked employees for employment records on a different night and the employees had been unable to provide them. After some testimony from Agent Fosler and Supervisor Ka’bah about the employment records, Mr. Fradin moved to dismiss the recordkeeping violations, and the Board agreed. Mr. Ka’bah could not prove that he had actually asked an employee for the records and not just a random person in the establishment.

Prostitution Solicitation Violations: Baltimore City Police Detective Fletcher Jackson testified that he had entered the establishment in plainclothes on April 23, 2013, at 8:30pm as part of a prostitution investigation. He used his police report to refresh his recollection of what had happened during the encounter at the establishment, since it had occurred 10 months prior to the hearing.

Detective Fletcher was approached by a woman at the establishment, who began to dance for him. The detective complimented the woman on a tattoo on her back that read “blessed;” the detective’s testimony about what he said to the woman was rather explicit. Chairman Fogleman stopped the detective, reminded him that the proceedings are recorded and are broadcast live, and asked him to paraphrase the conversation, omitting any graphic descriptions. The detective continued with his testimony, relaying to the Board that he had suggested two sexual acts to the woman and that she had replied that it would cost him. He asked her how much it would cost, and she replied that it would cost $150 and the detective agreed. At that point, he texted other police officers who were waiting nearby, and they entered the establishment.

After Detective Fletcher’s testimony, Mr. Fradin cross-examined him, asking whether any sex act took place or whether the woman attempted to have sex with him in the club. The detective replied no to both questions. Mr. Fradin noted that there was no actual act, just a discussion about sex. He argued that there was no agreement between Detective Fletcher and the woman. She could have been talking about anything, including taking her home, dinner, any other things that a man and a woman could discuss. Detective Fletcher disagreed, stating that no one would pay $150 to get a ride home. Mr. Fradin responded that, according to the detective’s testimony, the woman had asked, “you want to see more of me?” and that the cost was $150. Mr. Fradin said, “You never actually took her home. You were just kind of like talking.”

Mr. Fradin then asked if the licensee was present during the communication with the dancer. Detective Fletcher replied that she was not. Chairman Fogleman asked the detective how long the conversation lasted with the dancer and Detective Fletcher replied 10 minutes. At one point, the bartender asked if the detective needed a refill on his drink, but no one else was around.

Mr. Fradin concluded his argument by telling the Board that it is not even necessary to call this particular dancer to testify about her conversation with Detective Fletcher, because the conclusion that the Board should draw is so clear. There was some discussion between the two. There was no understanding between the parties about what may or may not happen “in the sanctity of the club” or what the money may be for.

Watch part of this hearing (the detective’s testimony and the decision phase of the hearing) on YouTube:

30 day suspension of the license: April 1-30, 2014.

After the guilty verdict, Mr. Fradin had an opportunity to give the Board any information that might help the Board to give an appropriate punishment for the violation. Most attorneys take this opportunity to inform the Board of what their client will do better in the future or what the client has already done to avoid the same situation moving forward. Mr. Fradin, however, merely informed the Board that the licensee would like a minimum fine for the violation, adding, “I don’t think this is really a fine issue. They pay a lot more in legal fees than the fine.” The Board voted to assess a thirty day suspension of the license, from April 1-30, 2014; Chairman Fogleman noted that Article 2B allows the Board to issue a fine of up to $500, to suspend or revoke the license. The Board felt that a $500 fine was not sufficient to correct the behavior.