What happened at the Liquor Board on June 18, 2015.

Mr. Kodenski responded that he believed that the issues related to a language barrier between the licensee and the community. He reminded the Board that the license is a previously existing one at an existing location and that the transfer is for the ownership of the license only. Singh has removed his request for live entertainment and to use the second floor of the building. He told the commissioners that the applicant was a licensee in Baltimore City at the Caton House from 2010-2014. He met with SBNA two or three times, but the community wanted him to agree to a minimum food sales percentage, which he refused to do. Kodenski had no knowledge of the alleged Baltimore County violations. Mr. Singh admitted a violation for sale of alcohol to a minor, but he disagreed that he had willfully misrepresented his address and that he had been found responsible for allowing open containers outside. Mr. Butler testified briefly that he has no ownership in the business, but he agreed to be on the license because he is a personal friend of Mr. Singh’s. Mr. Andrew Dunlap, the current licensee at the establishment, testified that the neighborhood has improved and the corner has cleaned up over the past several years.

Ms. Adia Hoag, Liquor Chair of SBNA, testified next, in opposition to the transfer. She submitted letters of opposition from community members and organizations as well as a petition with individual signatures. Hoag said that she had tried to establish a relationship with Mr. Singh and had spoken to him at several meetings. Though Mr. Singh required a translator at the hearing, Hoag said that she had spoken with him each time in English, and she and Singh could understand each other perfectly. The bar in question is one block from an elementary school and one block from a rec center; the corner has had a history of drug dealing and prostitution. Hoag said that the community could not trust Singh, because of the straw man on the license and because he hasn’t been truthful.

Kodenski pointed out again that, for a transfer of ownership, the only relevant criterion is the character and fitness of the applicant(s); if the Board denies the transfer, the license will continue on at the location.

First, an undue hardship must currently exist. Many licensees use “the economy” as their hardship excuse, but there is no serious discussion, usually, of whether their excuse for why they haven’t opened or sold their license is really a “hardship” or whether it is “undue.” One example of an extremely due hardship was the Voltage case, in which a license was revoked for extremely dangerous behavior by the licensee but was then given back in a reconsideration. The “hardship” that the attorney argued was that the Board had ordered the licensee to remain closed; however, this was not an undue hardship, because it was a well-deserved closure, based on hours of police testimony.

The second requirement is that the hardship must currently exist, as of the time of the request. This is rarely if ever raised.

The third requirement is that the hardship must have caused the cessation of the business. Most of the time, licensees come in and cite hardships like difficulties in obtaining building permits. But slow City administrations in no case caused the business to close. They merely prevented the business from reopening once it closed for other reasons.

This licensee, from her testimony at the hearing, satisfies all the prongs: there was a plumbing break which caused damage to her building, which is an unusual and undue hardship. The damage still exists, which is why she hasn’t yet reopened. And, finally, the water damage caused the cessation of business.

Booze News welcomes the submission of other hardship extension requests in the past two years that qualify under all of the requirements in the law, if readers can think of others.

Violation of Rule 3.12: Public Welfare– March 22, 2015 – At approximately 2:30am Baltimore Police Officer John Witter was on routine foot patrol when he observed a large crowd gathered in front of the establishment after hours. Witter then went about dispersing the crowd and was requested by club staff to enter the premise to investigate an assault that occurred within the establishment. As a result of the physical altercation that occurred in the club, the victim was transported to the hospital.

Violation of Rule 3.12: Public Welfare – March 22, 2015 – At approximately 2:30am, while at the establishment in response to an assault, Baltimore Police Officer John Witter observed a male patron of the establishment leave the bar and openly urinate on the sidewalk. Witter approached the male and conducted a field interview. While conducting Witter discovered that the male had not identification on his person and was allowed into the establishment. While conducting the interview with the male patron the promoter of the event being held at the establishment spoke with Witter and told him the male patron was with him and told Witter he had brought the patron to the establishment.

Violation of Rule 4.05: Prohibited Hours – March 22, 2015 – At approximately 2:30am Baltimore Police Officer John Witter was on location inside of the establishment conducting an investigation into an assault. While on the premise Witter observed 20 people sitting on couches with alcoholic beverages either in their hands or placed in front them. The establishment’s license only allows them to serve alcoholic beverages until 2:00 am.

Baltimore City Police Officer Witter testified that, on March 22, at 2:30am, he was assigned to go to Oxygen to help with club closings in the area. Patrons were leaving, standing outside and dispersing through the area, when he received a call to come inside the bar, where an assault had taken place. He went inside and saw an unconscious woman on the ground. No one had seen what had happened to her; they saw her on the floor when the lights came on at the end of the night. Witter called for an ambulance, and the victim of the assault was taken to the hospital. No one was detained or arrested. When Officer Witter went back outside, he saw a man leave Oxygen, go outside and urinate into a planter on the sidewalk directly in front of the club. As he was beginning to question the man, the police got a call to respond to a different club, so he left and did not arrest the urinator.

One of the licensees, Mr. Musibau Shittu, confirmed that, when they turned the lights on at the end of the night, there was a young woman on the ground who said that another woman had punched her. Shittu said that the security guard held the woman who had supposedly assaulted the other, but she found a way to leave in the chaos. Furthermore, Mr. Shittu said that the urinating person was not a customer; he was someone who was just waiting for his friend to be done with work. He had not ordered any alcohol. One of the employees corroborated Shittu’s story that the public urinator was waiting to pick him up after work and was inside the building less than 10 minutes.

Violation of Rule 3.12: Public Welfare – March 14, 2015 – At approximately 6:30 pm, BLLC inspector John Chrissomalliss entered the establishment after making preliminary observations that patrons were allowed to enter and exit the establishment with open containers. At this time he made contact with one of the bar managers who identified herself as the manager. At this time, Chrissomalliss observed 40-50 patrons in the bar. Chrissomalliss asked the manager how she manages to ensure that patrons do not exit the establishment with open containers, and she stated it “was not an issue.” When asked about the lack of a security guard to patrol and card/id check patrons, she stated that the security guard would “get here around 9:00pm.” At this time, Chrissomalliss informed that bar manager that the establishment’s operation must conform to BLLC rules and regulations.

Violation of Rule 3.12: Public Welfare – March 21, 2015 – At approximately 1:45 am, BLLC inspector John Chrissomalliss and Lt. William Coburn responded to an assault allegedly going on in front of the establishment. Upon arrival both Chrissomalliss and Coburn came into contact with the victim who stated he was hit over the head with an object by the assailant, who fled the scene. While present, Chrissomalliss and Coburn observed a large group of people gathered around the victim. About 8-10 of the individuals had various bottles of beer and clear cups from which they were consuming alcoholic beverages.

Baltimore Police Liutenant Williams Colburn testified that on March 21, he was in the area and a passerby told him there was a fight in front of the bar. He walked over and saw a large crowd around a young man who was bleeding from the head. The man told police that he had been hit in the head but was not cooperative and left the location on foot. A witness said that someone had thrown a smoker’s station at the victim. The victim said that he had been in a dispute that began in the bar and had become violent outside the bar. Colburn also saw people with beer bottles outside, within five feet of the entrance of the bar. He did not see anyone walk in or out of the bar and did not closely observe the contents of any cups.

Stephan Fogleman, for the establishment, submitted three affidavits regarding the March 21 incident: one from a security guard on duty that night, one from the victim and one from the aggressor. Mr. Jenco, the victim, said in his affidavit that the perpetrator of the incident, Mr. Robert Jones, had been thrown out of the bar earlier for being aggressive. Hours later, Mr. Jones had seen Jenco exit the bar and had attacked him by throwing a beer bottle at his head. The other two affidavits corroborated this story. The security guard’s affidavit said that customers from nearby establishments had come over to watch the fight with their drinks in hand; those people with drinks that Colburn saw were not from The Rockwell.

The bartender on duty during the March 14 alleged incident testified that they are usually not open until 7pm, but they were open early for a pub crawl that day. No one, to her knowledge, attempted to leave the bar with a drink in their hand. She said that the bar only uses glassware for alcoholic drinks and plastic cups for soft drinks and water. This testimony was corroborated by one of the licensees, Stephanie Kuzma.

Violation of Rule 3.12: Public Welfare– April 23, 2015 – At approximately 11:00 pm, Chief Inspector Jones received a neighbor’s complaint for loud music, disturbing the peace, and a violation of the MOU between the licensee, community association, and next door neighbor which stemmed from the establishment. At that time Jones responded to the establishment and observed advertisements for live entertainment inside the establishment. Jones identified himself as a representative from the BLLC and observed a live band playing on stage. The live band consisted of multiple instrumentalists whose instruments were being amplified by a speaker system. Jones observed the noise level to be extreme and disturbing At that time, Jones made contact with the owner and informed him of the infraction.

Violation of Rule 4.18: Illegal Conduct– May 6, 2015 – At approximately 9:30 pm, Inspector Chrissomallis received complaints concerning the loading of equipment into the establishment for the purposes of allowing a live band to play at the establishment. Chrissomallis responded to the scene and made observations through the front window. Chrissomallis observed a singer on stage performing. At that time he made contact with the owner and the owner stated that this was a private show that was booked three months in advance. Chrissomallis also observed performers on stage playing instruments and singing both of which were amplified by a speaker system. At that time, Inspector Chrissomallis informed the owner of the infraction.

Violation of Rule 4.18: Illegal Conduct– May 29, 2015 – The BLLC received complaints concerning the advertisement of an event that promoted live entertainment by flyers that placed throughout the immediate neighborhood. This is in direct violation of the board decision to not approve live entertainment. BLLC inspectors went to the location on the evening of May 29, 2015 to find out the event had been canceled.

On May 29, Jones had received emails earlier in the week with advertisements for an upcoming event, but the licensee ended up cancelling the event. Inspector Kevin Hillenburg corroborated that he had gone to the bar on May 29, and no one was really there. There were two couples dancing on the dance floor, but there was no DJ.

Inspector Chrissomallis testified that, on April 19, he had received 311 complaints of loud music and noise. When the inspector arrived to investigate the complaint, he couldn’t hear any music from the outside, but he saw twenty people dancing to music played by a DJ, which was coming out of amplified speakers. The inspector apparently did not bring a decibel reader with him on that day but he testified that the noise sounded to him like a 5 out of 10. On May 6, he received a tip that band equipment was being unloaded in front of the Latin Palace. He arrived at 9:30 and did not observe any activity outside. Looking through the window, he saw a man singing and a small audience. When he entered, he spoke to the owner, who said that the event was a private party. The inspector corroborated that the establishment was closed to the public, but live entertainment was forbidden under the Latin Palace’s license.

Several community members testified next. Ms. Dawn Gilliam and Mr. Mondel Powell, who live together in an adjoining house to the Latin Palace, testified about the ways in which the noise from the establishment has been disruptive to their daily lives. Joanne Masopust, of the Fells Point Community Organization, testified that she had worked hard to come to an agreement, on behalf of her association, with the licensee, and he had broken the agreement almost immediately.

Mr. John Pica, for his client, the licensee, did not put on any testimony, but he submitted letters and petitions from organizations and individuals who support the Latin Palace. Mr. Pica said that his client was originally granted a license that does not suit his business needs. The licensee is having financial difficulties: he’s lost one home and is in foreclosure on his other home. He cannot operate without live entertainment at this location. If the Board revokes the license, the building will be empty.

Violation of Rule 3.12: Public Welfare – March 14, 2015 – May 12, 2015 – At approximately 10:28 pm Baltimore City Police responded to the scene of the establishment for a shooting. Upon arrival Police interviewed and made contact with the victim, a Mr. Nathaniel Cottman, the bouncer of the establishment who stated he was shot when extracting a patron from the premises. The patron had attempted to enter the women’s bathroom and was stopped by security. Mr. Cottman, along with another bouncer, removed the patron from interior and exited him from the establishment. Upon turning around and reentering the establishment Mr. Cottman heard a shot and felt a pain on his side. He had been shot from by the patron who was outside of the establishment. The shooter ran from the area after the shots were fired.

Licensee Elaine Fordham, unrepresented, was not at the scene during the incident but testified to what she had been told by her employees. She said that a stranger had come in the bar whom no one knew and was acting strangely; the man went to the back of the building near the women’s restroom. At this point, Mr. Cottman, who Fordham said does not work for her but works as security for a hookah bar across the street and was waiting for his shift to begin, told the man to leave and ejected him from the building. As Cottman was turning to go back inside, the man shot Cottman twice. Fordham did not bring any other witnesses with her to corroborate her testimony.

Deputy Executive Secretary Thomas Akras pointed out in closing that Ms. Fordham was not there when the incident occurred, so she was testifying based on what she had been told. Ms. Fordham replied that the police officer wasn’t present at the time of the shooting either, so he was just testifying based on what he understood from witnesses. Chairman Ward replied to Fordham, “that’s a good point! You should go to law school.”