Skip to main content

Ronald J. Pudder, Was Sentenced in Church Arson Case

WASHINGTON – An Ohio man was sentenced to 51 months in prison for setting fire to the First Azusa Apostolic Faith Church of God in Conneaut, Ohio , the Department of Justice announced today. Ronald J. Pudder, 23, of Conneaut, pleaded guilty last year to one count of intentionally damaging, destroying and attempting to destroy religious property because of the race, color, and ethnic characteristics of individuals associated with that property.

“In this nation, one of our most basic rights is the freedom to practice our faith in peace. We will not tolerate acts of violence that attempt to disrupt that right,” said Thomas E. Perez, Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights. “The Justice Department will aggressively prosecute acts of violence fueled by hate.”

“The defendant in this case meant to send a hateful message that hearkens back to the darkest days of our nation,” said U.S. Attorney for the Northern District of Ohio Steve M. Dettelbach. “But today, standing here, united against hate, we – black, white, Jewish, Muslim and Christian, man and woman, old and young – are sending a stronger message

According to court documents, Pudder admitted that on May 20, 2010, he set on fire the First Azusa Apostolic Faith Church of God, which is the sole predominantly African-American church in the Conneaut area.

Neighbors called police around 4:45 a.m. after seeing the church in flames. The front door was scorched, but the flames did not penetrate the interior of the church. Investigators later determined the door had been doused with an accelerant, as had other doors on the church, but those did not catch fire

This case is being prosecuted by Patricia A. Sumner, trial attorney with the Criminal Section of the Civil Rights Division, and Assistant U.S. Attorney James V. Moroney, following an investigation by the Painesville Resident Agency of the Cleveland FBI and the Conneaut Police Department.
Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

15 Gang Members Convicted on Conspiracy, Weapons Possession, Firearms Trafficking Charges Case Follows Recent Convictions of 137th Street Crew and East Harlem Narcotics Trafficking Organization

Manhattan District Attorney Cyrus R. Vance, Jr., announced the results of the investigation and prosecution of one of Central Harlem’s most destructive criminal street gangs, referred to as “ONE TWENTY-NINE” or “GOODFELLAS/THE NEW DONS,” which terrorized the neighborhood surrounding West 129th Street between Lenox and Fifth Avenues. Thirteen members of the gang have previously pleaded guilty to importing, possessing, and using firearms over the course of the conspiracy.
Post a Comment
Read more

The Myth, The Matrix, and The Malpractice: Unpacking the Sophia Stewart Saga

The internet loves a good underdog story, especially one where a lone creator battles Hollywood giants. Few tales have captivated online forums and social media quite like that of Sophia Stewart, the woman who famously sued the creators of The Matrix and The Terminator, claiming they stole her work, "The Third Eye." Her story is a complex tapestry woven with claims of stolen genius, judicial conflicts, and attorney negligence. Let's untangle the legal facts from the compelling narrative and examine the heart of her claims. The Core Allegation: "The Third Eye" and the Blockbusters Sophia Stewart alleged that her copyrighted manuscript, "The Third Eye," conceived in 1981 and finalized in 1983, was the blueprint for two of the most iconic sci-fi franchises: The Terminator (first film 1984) and The Matrix (first film 1999). From her perspective, the similarities were undeniable. Stewart’s supporters often point to broad, impactful themes and ev...
3 comments
Read more

Charlie Kirk Was Right, and Charlie Kirk Was Wrong: The Enduring Legacy of the Civil Rights Act of 1964

Charlie Kirk, a prominent conservative commentator, has argued that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was unnecessary, contending that the 14th Amendment should have been sufficient to guarantee equal rights. There's a compelling argument to be made for both sides of this statement. Let's break down where Kirk was right and, more importantly, where historical context reveals he was profoundly wrong. Where Charlie Kirk Was "Right" (In Theory) Kirk's theoretical point hinges on the idea that fundamental constitutional principles, if interpreted and enforced correctly, should have negated the need for additional legislation. And, in a perfect world, he would be correct. The 14th Amendment, ratified in 1868, explicitly states that "no State shall... deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." The intent was to ensure all citizens, particularly newly freed African Americans, were treated equally under the law. If this ...
Post a Comment
Read more