Wednesday, December 17, 2014

THIS IS WHAT LAPDOG "PUBLIUS" COLLIER REALLY DOES NOT WANT THE PUBLIC TO KNOW, PHILANDERING HYPOCRITE THAT HE IS!

Shown below is the seventh installment of the MOTION TO DISMISS WITH PREJUDICE ON THE GROUNDS OF PROSECUTORIAL AND JUDICIAL BAD FAITH AND MISCONDUCT, which LAPDOG "PUBLIUS" COLLIER and the Republicrats at the Medina County Courthouse, Mosque & Railroad Station do not want you, the citizens, to see.  You can cross-reference any exhibits to the List of Exhibits by "CLICKING" on the link shown directly below "PAGES" at the upper right-hand corner of the web page:



A.  Judge Collier is Involved in a Longstanding

Sexual Relationship With His Court Reporter Donna Garrity.


Inspector Hartman publishes a blog, found at medinacorruption.blogspot.com, which is primarily dedicated to exposing the corruption endemic in the Medina County Justice System.  As a feature of his blog, Inspector Hartman invites comment and information from the public.  As a result, he has received relevant information and has developed a number of confidential sources, who have provided information pertaining to the public corruption in Medina County government, including the courts.  Two of Inspector Hartman’s independent confidential sources have provided information that Judge Collier is involved in a longstanding sexual relationship with his court reporter Donna Garrity.  The sexual relationship between the judge and Garrity is reported to have been ongoing for the past eight years.

Moreover, those same independent confidential sources have reported that the ongoing sexual relationship between the judge and Garrity is “common knowledge” among members of the Medina Bar.

Inspector Hartman’s Affidavit, detailing information her received from his confidential sources pertaining to the sexual relationship between Judge Collier and his court reporter, Donna Garrity, is attached as Exhibit Nine.
THERE YOU HAVE IT.  LAPDOG "PUBLIUS" COLLIER DOES NOT WANT THE CITIZENS OF THIS COUNTY TO KNOW THAT HE HAS BEEN BEDDING DOWN HIS COURT REPORTER, WHICH EXPLAINS FULLY DONNA "HAVE IT YOUR WAY" GARRITY'S MOTIVATION FOR PERMITTING "PUBLIUS" TO REVIEW, EDIT, AND ALTER TRANSCRIPTS BEFORE SHE FILES THEM IN THE NINTH DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS.  TOO LATE NOW, "PUBLIUS," OR IS IT "PUBICus?"  THIS CAT HAS LONG BEEN OUT OF THE BAG, CONTRARY TO YOUR BEST EFFORTS TO CONCEAL YOUR SORDID SEXUAL RELATIONSHIP WITH YOUR "MAIN SQUEEZE," YOUR COURT REPORTER DONNA "HAVE IT YOUR WAY" GARRITY.

Tuesday, December 16, 2014

LAPDOG "PUBLIUS" COLLIER MUST BE A REALLY SLOW READER

Shown below is the sixth installment of the MOTION TO DISMISS WITH PREJUDICE ON THE GROUNDS OF PROSECUTORIAL AND JUDICIAL BAD FAITH AND MISCONDUCT, which LAPDOG "PUBLIUS" COLLIER and the Republicrats at the Medina County Courthouse, Mosque & Railroad Station do not want you, the citizens, to see.  You can cross-reference any exhibits to the List of Exhibits by "CLICKING" on the link shown directly below "PAGES" at the upper right-hand corner of the web page:



3.  Trial Court I [LAPDOG "PUBLIUS" COLLIER]  and the Court Reporter Deliberately Edited, Tampered With And Materially Altered the “Official” Transcript of the Proceedings in Trial I.


Defendant’s first trial (Trial I) was heard before Medina County Common Pleas Judge Christopher Collier. [aka "PUBLIUS"]

Court reporter Donna Garrity,  under contract with Judge Collier, recorded the Trial I proceedings.  Ms. Garrity is the President of Medina Court Reporters, Inc.  A copy of the business name registration, obtained from the website of the Ohio Secretary of State identifying Garrity as the President of Medina Court Reporters. Inc. is attached as Exhibit Six.

Mr. Hartman timely filed an appeal of his first unconstitutional conviction.  Attorney Robert Dixon, Defendant’s first appellate attorney served court reporter Donna Garrity with a Praecipe on March 18, 2010.  After requesting and receiving no fewer than seven extensions of time, Garrity filed the edited and materially altered transcript of the “official” proceeding in Trial I on December 27, 2010, more than thirteen months after the jury returned its verdict.  A copy of the case docket in Mr. Hartman’s first appeal, 9th Dist. No. 10CA0026-M, documenting Garrity’s extensions of time to file the transcript, is attached as Exhibit Seven.

Suspicious of the inordinate delay in filing the “official” transcript of Trial I, Inspector Hartman reviewed and analyzed cases pending on the docket of the Ninth District Court of Appeals.  Inspector Hartman discovered that, between the dates of Defendant’s verdict in Trial I and the time that Garrity filed Defendant’s corrupted transcript on December 27, 2010, Garrity filed no fewer than transcripts of nine proceedings held before Judge Collier, including two jury trials, after the date of Mr. Hartman’s verdict.  A copy of Inspector Hartman’s analysis of court reporter Donna Garrity’s workload, obtained from the docket of the Ninth District Court of Appeals, is attached as Exhibit Eight.

The only reasonable and rational explanation for the inordinate time Garrity required to file Mr. Hartman’s corrupted transcript is that she afforded ample time to Judge Collier to edit and materially alter Mr. Hartman’s transcript.[1]




[1] Court reporter Donna Garrity lacks the knowledge to understand the legal concepts that would otherwise form the grounds for the Defendant to prevail on appeal and, therefore, could not, independently, determine which material alterations to make to the transcript to deny Mr. Hartman a fair hearing on appeal.

LAPDOG "PIBLIUS" COLLIER, WHO HAS BOASTED THAT HE WAS A "C" STUDENT IN SCHOOL, IS OBVIOUSLY A VERY SLOW READER.  IT TOOK HIM 13 MONTHS TO READ, EDIT, AND ALTER THE TRANSCRIPTS IN THIS CASE IN AN ATTEMPT TO DEPRIVE THIS INNOCENT CITIZEN OF A FAIR HEARING ON APPEAL FOLLOWING THE KANGAROO TRIAL BEFORE "PUBLIUS."

Monday, December 15, 2014

LAPDOG "PUBLIUS" COLLIER TO SELEAZEBURY DURING PROHIBITED EX PARTE DISCUSSION: "i'll HELP YOU" (VIOLATE THE RULES)!

Shown below is the fifth installment of the MOTION TO DISMISS WITH PREJUDICE ON THE GROUNDS OF PROSECUTORIAL AND JUDICIAL BAD FAITH AND MISCONDUCT, which LAPDOG "PUBLIUS" COLLIER and the Republicrats at the Medina County Courthouse, Mosque & Railroad Station do not want you, the citizens, to see.  You can cross-reference any exhibits to the List of Exhibits by "CLICKING" on the link shown directly below "PAGES" at the upper right-hand corner of the web page:

 
 
C.  During a Heated Ex Parte Discussion in Chambers, Pertaining to This
Case, Between Judge Collier and the Assistant Prosecutor, The Judge Was Overheard  to Shout at the Prosecutor, “I’ll Help You!”

 

On December 18, 2009, as the undersigned counsel and Inspector Hartman sat in the courtroom immediately prior to a “hearing” on the Defendant’s post-trial motions, they could clearly hear an ex parte discussion between Judge Collier and the assistant prosecutor pertaining to this case in chambers.  They had been discussing the improper denial of the spousal privilege despite multiple assertions of the privilege by Defendant’s wife on numerous occasions prior to trial, and despite Mr. Hartman’s assertions of his privilege.  At one point in the ex parte discussion of this case, Judge Collier yelled at the assistant prosecutor, “You compelled the wife to testify.  But I’ll help you.”

Inspector Hartman memorialized this ex parte discussion between Judge Collier and the assistant prosecutor in a November 19, 2010 affidavit, which the undersigned attached to her affidavit to disqualify Judge Collier that she filed with the Ohio Supreme Court.  In the undersigned counsel’s affidavit to disqualify Judge Collier, she also memorialized the ex parte discussion between Judge Collier and the assistant prosecutor.

The undersigned’s affidavit to disqualify Judge Collier, with Inspector Hartman’s supporting affidavit attached, is appended hereto as Exhibit Five.

LAPDOG "PUBLIUS" COLLIER HAS BEEN "HELPING" SLEAZEBURY AND CORRUPT COUNTY PROSECUTOR DINO HOEMAN TO FRAME AND CONVICT INNOCENT CITIZENS FOR YEARS.  NOTHING NEW HERE, EXCEPT  THAT "PUBLIUS" GOT CAUGHT  BY RUNNING HIS MOUTH ON THIS OCCASION.  HOEMAN AND "PUBLIUS" BELIEVE THEY ARE UNTOUCHABLE.

Friday, December 12, 2014

VISITING JUDGE RICHARD (the) "DICK" MARKUS, CHIEF AMONG MORONS, PLAYS "HIDE THE EVIDENCE"

Shown below is the fourth installment of the MOTION TO DISMISS WITH PREJUDICE ON THE GROUNDS OF PROSECUTORIAL AND JUDICIAL BAD FAITH AND MISCONDUCT, which LAPDOG "PUBLIUS" COLLIER and the Republicrats at the Medina County Courthouse, Mosque & Railroad Station do not want you, the citizens, to see.  You can cross-reference any exhibits to the List of Exhibits by "CLICKING" on the link shown directly below "PAGES" at the upper right-hand corner of the web page:


B.  Trial Court II [RICHARD (the) "DICK" MARKUS] Was Prejudiced by an Ex Parte Letter From Adversarial Third Parties In Unrelated Civil Litigation,
                     Which Ex Parte Letter The Court Deliberately Withheld from the Defense.

 

Trial Court II withheld an ex parte letter that adversaries of Inspector Paul M. Hartman, in unrelated civil litigation filed in the U.S. district Court, Southern District of Indiana, sent to the Trial Court II immediately prior to Defendant’s second trial.  The ex parte letter made false and fraudulent claims of unspecified wrongdoing against Inspector Hartman and the undersigned.  Trial Judge II [RICHARD (the) "DICK" MARKUS] never disclosed the ex parte letter to Defendant or his counsel, who only inadvertently learned of the letter several months after Trial II.  A copy of the ex parte letter sent by Kevin McCarthy (an Indiana attorney fired by the U.S. Justice Department for cause) and Alan Kershaw (an Italian attorney suspended from the practice of law for one year during the period May 2012 and May 2013) is attached as Exhibit Four.

The ex parte letter prejudiced Defendant and his defense team, as evidenced by the following finding of the Ninth District Court of Appeals in its decision in Mr. Hartman’s second appeal, State v. Hartman, 9th Dist. No. 12CA0057-M, 2013-Ohio-4407:

Ultimately, it was the State’s repeated comments about lies and mischaracterization of the evidence that led defense counsel to finally object during a sidebar.  Defense Counsel correctly pointed out that “it is improper to say an attorney is lying or misleading.”  Nonetheless, the trial court, while expressing concern that the prosecutor was possibly making references to matters that were not in evidence, overruled the objection and the assistant prosecutor’s inappropriate comments continued.  [Emphasis added.]  Id, at 10.
 

Defense counsel made no subsequent objections during closing argument.  Given the trial court’s response to her initial objections. It is possible she viewed the act of further objection as futile.  To the extent that this Court should view any remaining comments under the plain error standard, we conclude that the totality of the improper comments constitutes plain error.  [Emphasis added.]  Ibid., n.1.
 
["PLAIN ERROR" IS AS BAD AS IT GETS AT TRIAL !!!]

This and other actions by the State and the Judiciary reach far beyond prosecutorial misconduct and demonstrate the State’s and the Trial Courts’ bad faith throughout these proceedings.  The Ninth District Court of Appeals has, in circumstances markedly similar to Matthew Hartman’s first and second trials, held that retrial is barred in the case of an accused who “has been sufficiently harassed by unlawful government procedure as to invoke the prohibition against unwarranted successive criminal prosecutions within the meaning of the Double Jeopardy Clauses of the federal and state Constitutions.”  State v Daugherty, 9h Dist. Nos. CA7076, CA7083, 41 Ohio App. 3d 91 (1987).

In Daugherty, the Court of Appeals held:

In summary, we consider it to be fundamental that:
1. It is grounds for a mistrial when a lawyer in a jury case rests his case, having failed to adduce any admissible evidence of information harmful to his adversary that he has, in the presence of the jury, asserted to be true in a question to and that was denied by an adverse witness where the information is not otherwise in evidence.
2. It is professional misconduct where the information is put before the jury in such form that it appears that the lawyer is putting his own personal credibility into the balance for the jury to consider.
3. Accordingly, where a trial lawyer, under the pretext of putting a question to an adverse witness upon cross-examination, actually asserts to a jury the truth of unproved information substantially harmful to his adversary, the denial by the witness requires the lawyer to produce proper proof thereof. His failure to do so entitles his adversary to a mistrial.
4. The constitutional right to a fair trial in criminal cases makes the above rules applicable to lawyers engaged in a public prosecution. See Berger v. United States (1935), 295 U.S. 78.
In the case at bar, the prosecution "rubbed it in" in final argument, arguing the credibility of the accused and challenging the jury to consider "of what time she did work that day." The record contains other examples of prosecutorial misconduct, probably the result of inexperience, but condoned by the trial judge who was not inexperienced.
Finally, we have considered the entire record of this case in the light of the precedent of United States v. Dinitz (1976), 424 U.S. 600, and conclude that this accused has been sufficiently harassed by unlawful government procedure as to invoke the prohibition against unwarranted successive criminal prosecutions within the meaning of the Double Jeopardy Clauses of the federal and state Constitutions.  [Emphasis added.]  Id., 93-94.
 

Daugherty is precisely on point. The Medina County assistant prosecutor has equaled and exceeded the bad faith conduct for which the Court of Appeals criticized the State in Daugherty, which had been a sufficient basis as a bar to retrial under the Double Jeopardy Clauses of the federal and state constitutions.[1]

Mr. Hartman has already been tried twice. The Ninth District Court of Appeals has overturned each of his prior convictions and also commented on the weakness of the State’s case.

In the second reversal of Mr. Hartman’s unconstitutional conviction, Judge Moore aptly observed, “I find it impossible to say that in a close case such as this one, a jury would have found the defendant guilty even without the improper comments.”  State v. Hartman, 9th Dist. No. 12CA0057-M, 2013-Ohio-4407, ¶36.




[1] The State repeatedly asked witnesses to comment on other witness’ alleged testimony, often misstating the actual testimony. This practice is not permissible. See Douglas v. Alabama, 380 U.S. 415, 419 (1965). The prosecutor told Melissa Hartman that Al Leighton apparently saw a weapon (Tr. at 103), and that “other people” saw Petitioner with a gun around the children. (Tr. at 107).  The prosecutor told Melissa Hartman that Al Leighton said, “Not here. It’s not going to go down this way in my house.” (Tr. at 196). The prosecutor told Steven Hartman that “Melissa testified” that Petitioner “physically assaulted” her that day. (Tr. at 565).  In fact, it was the prosecutor who “testified” that Petitioner assaulted Melissa Hartman “that day.” (Tr. at 89, 113).  Melissa Hartman actually denied that Petitioner had assaulted her.  (Tr. at 113).  Melissa Hartman testified that it was she who had assaulted the Petitioner. (Tr. at 115).  Defendant’s June 29, 2011 Petition for Post-Conviction Relief, at 146.  The prosecutor repeatedly and continuously interjected himself as a witness into the case. (Tr. at 72-73, 75-77, 83-84, 86-91, 93-94, 110, 111, 113, 114, 115, 119-20, 131-32, 138, 172-74, 188-89, 194-96, 198, 200-02, 283, 334-35, 553-55, 592, 854-55). Id., at 147.  The prosecutors repeatedly expressed their personal belief or nonbelief in the witness’ testimony. (Tr. at 102, 103, 106, 107, 118, 177-78, 181, 189, 194-95). Id., at 148.
 
VISITING JUDGE RICHARD (the) "DICK" MARKUS, CHIEF AMONG MORONS, PROVED HIMSELF TO BE JUST AS DISHONEST AT TRIAL AS LAPDOG "PUBLIUS" COLLIER, AS THE NINTH DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS HAS CONCLUDED.  AFTER ALL, "DICK" MARKUS. WHO WAS REAL CHUMMY WITH CORRUPT MEDINA COUNTY PROSECUTOR DINO HOEMAN DURING THE TRIAL, TURNED OUT TO BE JUST "ONE OF THE BOYS!"
 

Thursday, December 11, 2014

LAPDOG COLLIER AND SCOTT SLEAZEBURY JOIN TOGETHER TO VIOLATE THE RULES OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE

Shown below is the third installment of the MOTION TO DISMISS WITH PREJUDICE ON THE GROUNDS OF PROSECUTORIAL AND JUDICIAL BAD FAITH AND MISCONDUCT, which LAPDOG "PUBLIUS" COLLIER and the Republicrats at the Medina County Courthouse, Mosque & Railroad Station do not want you, the citizens, to see.  You can cross-reference any exhibits to the List of Exhibits by "CLICKING" on the link shown directly below "PAGES" at the upper right-hand corner of the web page:


A.  The Prosecutor Introduced Inadmissible Alleged Other Acts

“Evidence” at Trial, After Acknowledging Its Inadmissibility and

After Assuring Defense Counsel and the Court That He Would Not Do So.

 

In Mr. Hartman’s Trial I, after assuring the court and defense counsel that he had no intention of presenting alleged forbidden acts to the jury (Motions in Limine Tr. at 8-9), the prosecutor called Mr. Hartman’s wife, as his first witness, over her repeated assertions of spousal privilege.[1]  The prosecutor, himself, on direct exam, then placed Mr. Hartman’s character at issue and presented the forbidden acts evidence to the jury, upon which he relied in closing argument. In fact, at a sidebar conference when the defense objected, the prosecutor “justified” his introduction of the forbidden acts, with his first witness on her first direct examination, by expressly stating, “I don’t have any other witness to testify to” the forbidden acts “evidence.”  (Tr. at 122).

The prosecutor, with the Court’s blessing, thus deliberately violated R.C. 2945.42, Evid.R. 404(b), 601(b), 608(a), as well a whole host of the provisions of the Ohio Rules of Professional Conduct and the ABA Standards of Conduct for Prosecutors, all with the bad-faith intent to prejudice Mr. Hartman.  (Juror comments after the trial confirmed that the inadmissible allegations did in fact prejudice the jury.)  The Court of Appeals reversed the conviction because of other evidentiary violations by the prosecutor and cautioned him not to repeat the other misconduct raised on appeal.

During Trial II, also subsequently reversed on appeal, expressly on grounds of prosecutorial misconduct, the prosecutors assured the judge that they had removed prejudicial remarks from the 911 call pertaining to false claims by Kim Leighton that the Hartmans were separated.  Again, the Assistant Medina County Prosecutor assured the court that he had reviewed the decision of the court of appeals and, in light of that decision, had removed the untrue allegation of separation.  Because the prosecutors had missed a reference, they had to prepare a corrected tape during the trial to play to the jury.  This process confirms that the prosecutors were well-aware that innuendo about the non-existent separation were prohibited during the retrial.  Yet, in closing argument, both prosecutors argued that the couple was separated, contrary to the sworn testimony and the express admonition of the Court of Appeals on this issue. See State v. Hartman, 9th Dist. Nos.  10CA026-M, 10CA0031-M, 2012-Ohio-745, ¶17, 19, 22.

During the appellate phase, the State continued to offer factual misrepresentations, misstating the testimony adduced at trial, even after Mr. Hartman briefed the precise cites in the record refuting the State’s invented “facts.”  See Appellant’s Reply Brief, 9th Dist. No. 12CA0057-M, pp. 1-2, attached hereto as Exhibit Three.




[1]  The alleged “forbidden acts” failed to qualify as legitimate Rule 404(b) evidence.  It was not like and similar to the charged offense of aggravated burglary, nor was it otherwise admissible under the Rules of Evidence.  The court did not conduct a balancing test of any kind, and the prosecutor offered it for exactly the purposes the Rules prohibit – to show alleged propensit1.  The admission of this “evidence,” over defense objections, was reversible error in and of itself and the manner of its introduction further demonstrates bad faith by the prosecutor and the court.
 
 
LAPDOG "PUBLIUS" COLLIER AND SCOTT SLEAZEBURY JOINED TOGETHER TO VIOLATE THE RULES OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE AND DELIBERATELY, AND UNLAWFULLY, PREJUDICE THIS INNOCENT CITIZEN, ALL FOR THE SAKE OF LAPDOG "PUBLIUS" COLLIER'S UNOPPOSED LIFETIME APPOINTMENT TO THE MEDINA COUNTY COURT.

Wednesday, December 10, 2014

LAPDOG "PUBLIUS" COLLIER DENIES THE FOURTH AMENDMENT TO THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION

Shown below is the second installment of the MOTION TO DISMISS WITH PREJUDICE ON THE GROUNDS OF PROSECUTORIAL AND JUDICIAL BAD FAITH AND MISCONDUCT, which LAPDOG "PUBLIUS" COLLIER and the Republicrats at the Medina County Courthouse, Mosque & Railroad Station do not want you, the citizens, to see.  You can cross-reference any exhibits to the List of Exhibits by "CLICKING" on the link shown directly below "PAGES" at the upper right-hand corner of the web page:



2.         Trial Court I Denied Defendant’s Motion to Suppress On the Disingenuous

Rationale That an Indictment Cures Violations of the Fourth Amendment by Police.

 

Matthew Hartman filed a Motion to Suppress in Trial Court I [LAPDOG COLLIER] on July 30, 2009, requesting an evidentiary hearing.  Mr. Hartman filed his Supplement to Defendant’s Motion to Suppress on August 20, 2012.

As a preliminary matter, the criminal complaint in support of the arrest warrant did not contain a statement of essential facts, as the Fourth Amendment and Ohio Crim.R. 3 require.  Moreover, Deputy Douglas Clinage did not swear to the criminal complaint, also in violation of the Fourth Amendment and Ohio Crim R. 3.  Deputy Clinage conceded in his suppression hearing testimony that he  had not  sworn to the criminal complaint. (Suppression Hearing Tr. at 242).  The unsworn criminal complaint, the arrest warrant, and the seizure of any purported evidence flowing directly therefrom are constitutionally defective and invalid. Copies of the unsworn criminal complaint and arrest warrant are attached as Exhibit Fifty-Five.  Page 242 of the transcript of the suppression hearing testimony of Deputy Douglas Clinage conceding that he had not sworn to the criminal complaint is attached as Exhibit Fifty-Six.

Moreover, the State failed to meet its burden at the suppression hearing and demanded that the defense present its case prior to the time that the State produced its witnesses. (Suppression Hearing Tr. at 5).  A copy of Page 5 of the transcript of the suppression hearing is attached as Exhibit Fifty-Seven.

Following the suppression testimony of Deputy Frank Telatko and during the cross-examination of Deputy Clinage, who was the only witnesses the State belatedly produced at the suppression hearing after Judge Collier granted several continuances to accommodate the State, defense counsel properly argued the law to Judge Collier:

MS. CRAMER:          But at the time of arrest, he [Matthew Hartman] was arrested without probable cause.  The testimony corroborates the arresting officer didn’t even know what he [Matthew Hartman] was being arrested for.

THE COURT:             What you’re saying - -

MS. CRAMER:          Matthew Hartman is asking what the charge is.  Now, We’re looking at the stage - -  they did it wrong every step of the way.  Now we’re looking at the stage of obtaining the arrest warrant and what was - - what was done to have a warrant issued.  And to have a warrant issued there has to be a sworn affidavit under the Fourth Amendment.  There has to be a sworn affidavit under Ohio Rule 3.  I believe it has to be an affidavit with the specific facts - -

THE COURT:             Right.

MS CRAMER:           - - and there was no affidavit.

THE COURT:             What’s your remedy?

MS. CRAMER:          The remedy is that it’s an invalid warrant.

THE COURT:             And - -

MS. CRAMER:          So that everything incident to the arrest - - incident to the arrest has to be thrown out. . . The subsequent indictment can’t validate an illegal arrest warrant, an illegal arrest before that ….

(Suppression Hearing Tr. at 241-242).

Matthew Hartman, in his briefs, cited to controlling authorities including, but not limited to,  Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S 213, 215 (1983) (Under the ‘totality of the circumstances’ analysis, corroboration of details of an informant’s tip by independent police work is of significant value); California v. Hodari D, 499 U.S. 621, 625 (1991) (it has been long understood that the Fourth Amendment’s protections  against unreasonable seizure include seizures of the person); Wong Sun v. United States, 371 U.S. 471, 479 (1963) (It is basic that an arrest with or without a warrant must stand upon firmer ground than mere suspicion); Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 8-9 (1968) ( the Fourth Amendment right against unreasonable searches and seizures protects people, not places and applies as much to citizens on the streets as well as at home); Whitely v. Warden Wyoming State Penitentiary, 401 U.S. 560, 565-569 (1971) (criminal complaint consisting of no more than the complainant’s conclusion that the individual named in the complaint perpetrated the offense identified therein could not support a finding of probable cause); Giordenello v. United States, 357 U.S. 486,  (1958) (judicial officer should not accept without question the complainant’s mere conclusion that the person whose arrest is sought has committed a crime); Kalina v. Fletcher, 522 U.S. 118, 119 (1997) (the evidentiary component of an application for arrest  is a distinct and essential predicate for a finding of probable cause).  Even properly trained and competent law enforcement officers,[excluding Medina County sheriff's deputies who have no comprehension of the Fourth Amendment jurisprudence] who are not lawyers or trained extensively in the law, are aware of the holding in Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643 (1961) and its progenitors, barring admission of evidence that has been seized in violation of the Fourth Amendment.   See also Matthew Hartman’s Motion to Suppress.

Moreover, the State failed to file any opposition to Mr. Hartman’s briefs and his motion to suppress had, therefore, gone unopposed.

Notwithstanding the extensive briefing on the controlling law and the evidence adduced at the suppression hearing, and in spite of the deliberately altered transcript of the suppression hearing, infra, there is no question that Trial Court I erred when it improperly denied  Mr. Hartman’s motion to suppress.

The denial of Mr. Hartman’s motion to suppress by Trial Court I, all the while turning a blind eye to the testimony of the State’s witnesses (whose testimony failed to support probable cause for the arrest) and deliberately ignoring the most basic and common tenets of longstanding Fourth Amendment jurisprudence presents incontrovertible evidence of bad faith by trial Court I [LAPDOG COLLIER].

LAPDOG COLLIER, WHO IS IN DINO HOEMAN'S HIP POCKET, COMPLETELY IGNORED THE FOURTH AMENDMENT TO THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION, AS IF IT DID NOT EXIST, AS WELL AS THE CONTROLLING LAW DECIDED BY THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT.  THAT IS THE WAY HE MAINTAINS AN UNOPPOSED, LIFETIME APPOINTMENT TO THE MEDINA COUNTY COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, COMPLIMENTS OF DINO HOEMAN AND THE MEDINA REPUBLICRATS.

Tuesday, December 9, 2014

WHAT YOU, THE CITIZENS, NEED TO KNOW !!!

As the blogger pointed out in the prior post at this blog. information was received that LAPDOG "PUBLIUS" COLLIER has threatened to sue the Medina Gazette if they publish any article disclosing the content of the MOTION TO DISMISS WITH PREJUDICE ON THE GROUNDS OF PROSECUTORIAL AND JUDICIAL BAD FAITH AND MISCONDUCT filed in the case of the innocent citizen whom CORRUPT MEDINA COUNTY PROSECUTOR DINO HOEMAN is attempting to take to trial a third time after the prior convictions were reversed twice by the Ninth District Court of Appeals, due and owing to PROSECUTORIAL MISCONDUCT facilitated by LAPDOG "PUBLIUS" COLLIER and RICHARD (the) "DICK" MARKUS, both birds of the feather.

The blogger has decided to publish the entire MOTION TO DISMISS WITH PREJUDICE ON THE GROUNDS OF PROSECUTORIAL AND JUDICIAL BAD FAITH AND MISCONDUCT in segments.  Any references to exhibits can be cross-referenced at the List of Exhibits, accessed by "CLICKING" the link at the upper right-hand corner of the web page directly beneath "PAGES."

Shown below is the first installment of the MOTION TO DISMISS WITH PREJUDICE ON THE GROUNDS OF PROSECUTORIAL AND JUDICIAL BAD FAITH AND MISCONDUCT :


1.         The State and the Previous Trial Courts Engaged in

Egregious Misconduct, Driven by Bad Faith.            

 

Justice demands dismissal of this case, with prejudice, where the record in this case, and other supporting evidence, proves that the State and the trial judge in Trial I unjustly prosecuted this Defendant in bad faith, engaging in egregious prosecutorial and judicial misconduct.  Prosecutorial and judicial bad faith and misconduct marked Defendant’s second trial as well.

A.  The State Fabricated a Discovery Document in Defendant’s First Trial.

At Trial I, the State fabricated a discovery document in a deliberate attempt to conceal that Mr. Hartman had not been Mirandized prior to his interrogation at the Medina County Jail, some eight hours following his unlawful arrest. A copy of the fabricated discovery Document is attached as Exhibit One.

Specifically, the police report by Deputy Douglas Clinage of his interrogation of Matthew Hartman, after his arrest and while he was in custody, revealed that Clinage failed to advise Matthew Hartman of his rights and also failed to seek a waiver of those rights.  Rather than admit the unconstitutional interrogation, Assistant Medina County Prosecutor Scott Salisbury fabricated a false police report of interview by cutting and pasting two different reports together to falsely represent to the Defense that Clinage had advised Matthew Hartman of his Miranda rights, when no such warning and waiver of rights occurred.

Salisbury combined Clinage’s report with portions of a separate report prepared by another deputy, who was not present for the interview, but rather was reporting on events occurring more than eight hours previously, at another location.  The copy Salisbury presented to the defense (see Exhibit One) bears the brackets Salisbury used to mark the portions of the other deputy’s report that Salisbury cut and pasted onto Clinage’s report.  Had the Defense not independently obtained the actual reports by subpoena, Salisbury might have gotten away with his dishonest and dishonorable ruse.

B.  The State Invaded the Defense Camp in Defendant’s First Trial.

Further misconduct occurred when the State invaded the defense camp during pre-trial proceedings by monitoring telephone calls between defense counsel, the defense investigator, and Defendant.  The Affidavit of Inspector Paul M. Hartman (Ret.), defense counsel’s investigator and Defendant’s father, was previously filed as an attachment (Exhibit #1) to the December 30, 2009 Defendant’s Post-Hearing Rebuttal Memorandum, With Exhibits and is presently attached hereto as Exhibit Two.

Moreover, the State planted an investigator in the county jail, after Defendant had been indicted, posing as inmate “Chris Palm/Palme,” to elicit information from Hartman pertaining to the charged alleged offense.  See Hoffa v. United States, 385 U.S 293, 307 (1966) citing Coplon v. United States, 89 U.S. App. D.C. 103, 114 (1951) (holding Government's intrusion upon the defendant's relationship with his lawyer "invalidates the trial at which it occurred").  This misconduct, in and of itself, warrants dismissal of the Indictment.  Id.

THUS FAR, THE MOTION ADDRESSES THE BAD FAITH AND MISCONDUCT BY CORRUPT MEDINA COUNTY PROSECUTOR DINO HOEMAN.